Debate Over Evolution Will Soon Be History, Says Leakey 1226
Hugh Pickens writes "According to noted paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey, sometime in the next 15 to 30 years scientific discoveries about evolution will have accelerated to the point that 'even the skeptics can accept it.' 'If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God.' Leakey began his work searching for fossils in the mid-1960s and his team unearthed a nearly complete 1.6-million-year-old skeleton in 1984 that became known as 'Turkana Boy,' the first known early human with long legs, short arms and a tall stature. At 67, Leakey conducts research with his wife, Meave, and daughter, Louise, and the family claims to have unearthed 'much of the existing fossil evidence for human evolution.' Leakey, an atheist, insists he has no animosity toward religion."
Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Never underestimate the stubbornness of sheer ignorance.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Funny)
Satan planted all the fossils and make it look like the Earth was old just to trap the unenlightened.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Funny)
That wily bastard!
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Mental Gymnastics of this sort are a violation of Occam's razor.
Of course, say that to a bible literalist / creationist and watch the blank stares.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful there, Occam's Razor is a handy tool, but not a logical argument. Occam's Razor can be applied or withheld, but not violated.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:4, Funny)
And he planted them in coal and oil so that we'd be motivated to find them!
God's experiment in free will (Score:3, Funny)
Re:God's experiment in free will (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not much of a gun if you can easily believe it's not there.
Or rather, its the same sort of pressure anyone feels when they do something they would prefer not to, but they do it anyway because they believe that it is the best thing for themselves long-term. If I had a reasonable belief that shooting myself in the foot would ensure that I didn't die some sort of horrible death later, I could reasonably shoot myself in the foot even though that action would generally be batshit insane otherwise.
You can f
Re: (Score:3)
No compulsion?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1999/issue63/63h042.html [christianitytoday.com] were gently persuaded then?
Not everyone that saith unto me, "Lord, Lord" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:God's experiment in free will (Score:4, Funny)
Atheists do the same thing. But lets ignore Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.. etc.. just so you think your point remains valid. I guess you failed to learn that Marx was an avid Atheist and much of Communism's goals are to crush Religion.
Re:God's experiment in free will (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm 100% certain that killing your own child for backtalking (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 10:9) is not "the best thing for yourself".
The sooner the entire world can bury all their holy books in the trash heap of history, the better.
Re:God's experiment in free will (Score:5, Insightful)
congrats on not respecting other people's beliefs
Any who came up with the idiotic idea that beliefs are inherently entitled to any respect?
If your neighbor has a belief that he's being anal probed by gay alien government agents, are you seriously suggesting that belief warrants any respect whatsoever? Does it warrant any more respect if someone believes in walking talking snakes? Does it warrant any more respect when someone believes God wrote, or divinely inspired, a book which (in part) orders parents to murder disrespectful children?
I respect people's freedom to believe stupid stuff. But that does not mean I have to respect the belief itself, nor does it mean I have to respect a person who believes stupid stuff.
-
Re:God's experiment in free will (Score:5, Insightful)
even worse: to say that you have so much 'riding on it' and yet there's not a scrap of evidence to support these wacky notions.
what gives? a choice you supposedly make now that affects you, *forever*; and the guy who is ruling in court is nowhere to be found and never, credibly, has been?
yeah, I'll believe that. sure. foreverness depends on a guy we've never seen, can't contact and who 'hides' because, well, he's shy or something.
but foreverness depends on how you bet. yup. makes perfect sense to me. seems just and totally fair. yup.
Re:God's experiment in free will (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the two possibilities: The first is that you're right (there's no God, no heaven, no hell, no eternal life), and there's no need to worry about Christians' beliefs because they're wrong anyway. Disagree with them. Vote against them. Ignore them. Politely tell them "no." The second possibility is that you're wrong and there is God. I suspect that God would be disappointed.
You forgot at least one other possibility - there is a God, but not a "Christian" one, and He is mad as hell that you guys are worshiping the wrong one, and takes it out on all of us, including those of us he would have spared for no worship at all. Also, there is the possibility of many Gods. See, it's not just two cases.
Re:God's experiment in free will (Score:4, Insightful)
The voices in your head told you that?
Why would a "God" need to perform an experiment, when He already knows the outcome? It is all irrational nonsense, fabricated stories no more substantial than children's fairy tales.
Re:God's experiment in free will (Score:5, Insightful)
fact: people are mostly scared and mostly can't relate to things beyond storybook levels.
fact: there is a LOT of fear in this world and it is mysterious to most. people need comforting. anyone who can sell a convincing story will be warmly accepted in their hearts.
its a set of human needs that religion 'fills', even if it does so via false information. having *some* answer, being stated with confidence, is mostly what people want. its very sad but its a true statement about humanity (regardless of time and place and culture).
you and I know its all fairy stories. but you and I are not typical 'scared human beings'. we have taken control of our fear and don't need fake answers. in that way, you and I are a percent of a percent. not even close to a majority. this is why we have the problems we have today: because most people are at the level of scared children and never, even in old age, will they progress beyond that.
most people *want* to be ruled. they *want* to be spoon fed info. "thinking is hard!"
Re:God's experiment in free will (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's different where you live but I don't perceive most religious people as scared. Most of them just want some sort of direction or purpose in life, something that gives meaning beyond eat, sleep, fuck and die. Someone to praise for the good things, pray for help with the bad things, that God has some sort of mission for them here on Earth not just an afterlife. And I don't mean that you have to go out and convert people, but to try living a life without sin and asking for forgiveness for your sins is a mission in itself. It's not that unlike sports, nobody tell me that in the greater meaning of things football "makes sense" - it's just an arbitrary set of rules we've turned into a game. But then we can play by those rules, we have some sort of measuring stick that says this was a good play and this was a bad play. Religion does that for your whole life, my life is now not just different than yours but it's now better than yours.
Science is great but it's also empty, there's nothing in physics or chemistry or biology that give any sort of purpose to life. There's no values, no ethics, it can perfectly describe what a bullet will do if you pull the trigger but there's nothing telling you if you should or shouldn't do it. Okay you can say evolution "wants" you to reproduce but that's not really true, it doesn't care if you don't. Why should it or how could it, it's only a game of numbers. There's humanism but it really only covers your interaction with other human beings and it mostly boils down to reciprocity because nobody wants to be treated as less than average but there's really no penalty for taking advantage of others if you can. Religion tends to be divine both in matters of fact and matters of law, there's no "getting away with murder" with an omniscient God. Seeing human courts sometimes failing miserably, I can see the appeal I just can't buy into the fantasy.
Re:God's experiment in free will (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion was great for values and ethics for early man because it was hard to get anyone to listen to one guy saying "Hey, don't do that" - much easier to listen to one guy saying "Hey, there's an ever-present, all-knowing being up there in the clouds that will totally not like it if you kill each other." These days, we should be able to get past this whole notion of "if you don't have religion, where do you get your morals?" This argument is plain ignorant in this day and age; morals/ethics/values/et al aren't something we need referenced from a book written by people who were spoken to by heavenly voices thousands of years ago - they are plain and simple guidelines that even children can understand: don't hurt others, don't kill, don't steal, don't etc. If a kid asks "why not?" we don't have to say "because God said not to" anymore, we can easily explain that those actions hurt others, and we wouldn't want someone doing that to us now would we?
Re: (Score:3)
Using another human's flawed logic to refute the existing of something supernatural is not exactly rational either, it's like trying to prove Einstein wrong by finding a mentally retarded person and berating them about problems with special and general relativity. Yeah, they will look at you funny and say "derp" when you talk about space-time as a dimension and rubber sheets with marbles on them. All you have proven is that the other person doesn't understand what they are talking about, it doesn't mean t
Re: (Score:3)
The voices in your head told you that?
Why would a "God" need to perform an experiment, when He already knows the outcome? It is all irrational nonsense, fabricated stories no more substantial than children's fairy tales.
Why do people have children, when they know they will one day die? Because humans are worth creating, for their own sake. The end of the "experiment" is irrelevant: some things are done simply because they are worth doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Whether they overcome the temptations of not is entirely dependent on the circumstances of the person's life, which is all planned by God. From the start, he's given some folks lives that lead them to accept temptation, and there's nothing they can do about it. It's their destiny to be damned.
So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bible (the Hebrew version) basically says that the Tree was the Tree of Knowledge: all knowledge other than basic gardening was a falling away from perfection. It's part of a quite general myth that everything was better in the past when things were simpler. But if the people who pursue knowledge are damned, God has a very funny way of showing it. To the pursuers of knowledge (S)he gives long life, worldly goods, a pleasant environment and an interesting existence. To the ones who claim to be obedient to her purpose she gives funny robes and membership in the Hassidic Jewish movement, the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Taliban. The day to day evidence is that Blake was right, and the God they claim to be obeying is actually Satan.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to be fair: In the Hebrew version, the sin that got Adam and Eve expelled from Eden wasn't really eating from the Tree of Knowledge. God gave them a chance to come clean and repent. Instead, they decided to blame each other and declare themselves completely taken advantage of. God didn't like this passing of the buck and so kicked them out. (In Judaism, there's also no Original Sin so this sin is only applicable to Adam and Eve, not to everyone who was born since. That's not relevant right now, though.)
In addition, in Judaism, there is a concept of Satan, but he's not some devil/ruler of Hell who is on par (or almost on par) with God. He's literally "the accuser." Think of him as the prosecuting attorney at your trial. His responsibility is to declare that you've been guilty of X, Y, and Z. Not to actually lead you to commit those sins yourself.
Judaism (except, perhaps, for a few fringe groups that have gone all literal/Must-Preserve-The-Past) actually values knowledge and encourages people to study and learn.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't the ultimate expression of free will not only to break from God's purpose, but when he shows up kill him and thus ending His purpose?
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I don't think Dr. Leakey's argument holds water. The main problem isn't that there's a lack of evidence now, it's that people who don't believe it simply don't believe it, and choose not to. More evidence isn't likely to get change people's beliefs.
Maybe in that time frame people who believe the evidence will come up with more convincing arguments, better debating material, but not simply more discoveries.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. I don't think Dr. Leakey's argument holds water.
So... Leakey is leaky?
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
More evidence isn't likely to get change people's beliefs.
If someone believes in supernatural phenomena, than natural evidence would be completely irrelevant, no matter what the quantity.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. I don't think Dr. Leakey's argument holds water. The main problem isn't that there's a lack of evidence now, it's that people who don't believe it simply don't believe it, and choose not to. More evidence isn't likely to get change people's beliefs.
Maybe in that time frame people who believe the evidence will come up with more convincing arguments, better debating material, but not simply more discoveries.
Many Christians say the same thing about non-believers. Just sayin'.
"In the choice between changing one's mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote again the guy who wrote my signature:
"Science adjusts its views according to what's observed; faith is the denial of evidence in order that belief can be preserved"
A scientist is doing a "better job" when he finds evidence that conflicts with the current viewpoint.
The devout are doing a better job (and consider themselves more righteous) when they ignore evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.
Or at least that's how it seems to me from the outside to me.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah the "debate" has been raging for over 200 years now, I don't expect to live to see the end of it.
It also gives us a glimpse at the likely future of the AGW "debate" which we've been witnessing pretty much from the beginning: Arguments with any possible scientific merit dry up within a few decades, and for centuries later the "skepticism" consists of mighty stonewalls of outright denial and/or batshit insanity, although at slowly decreasing prevalence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well the first stage during which arguments with scientific merit "dry up" is how science is supposed to work... If the people who discovered AGW had done the necessary experiments (check the sensors, assess alternative possibilities, etc) and kept the big mouths in their field controlled before it became a policy tool then we wouldn't have the issue we have today.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:4, Interesting)
It also doesnt make sense to try to reach them, once they've grown up in religion, they wont let it go for emotional and tribal reasons. It defines them as a community much stronger than their nationality does. It is sufficient to reach their kids, before they irreparably brainwash them.
I dont think religious adults really believe any of this, they just dont want to let it go because they _know_ what a slippery slope it is. Like that librarian Jorge in "the name of the rose" who burnt books because they were dangerous to religion. I think many of them know that they're creating an artificial reality, they simply prefer it to real reality, like the people in "The Village".
Theres no point in arguing evolution with them, they do not want to discuss it because that way they would above all confess to _each other_ that they all know that they've been pretending to each other all the time. For religious adults, theres simply too much emotional investment and pride and embarassment involved to simply give up faith. Accepting evolution will only work for kids, before their parents forcibly create a too strong emotional bonding between them and baby Jesus.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
It has never been about proof or knowledge. This debate like many others has always been about faith. For some groups, they would hold onto their beliefs because they are defined by them. They cannot see past those boundaries.
Take for instance one of my high school friends who was aghast that I voted Barack Obama in the last election. One of main reasons she cited that she voted for McCain was because she honestly believed in the Birther nonsense. She still does to this day despite overwhelming evidence that there was no issue. For her, she would rather believe Obama somehow cheated than accept a world where her candidate wasn't elected in a fair election.
You see this in other aspects like fans of football teams. Truthers, Area 51, Birthers--Sometimes people cannot accept we don't live in a world of their design.
As usual, XKCD has it nailed. (Score:3, Insightful)
ignorance != knowledge (Score:4, Insightful)
And other people choose to accept the world that is fed to them by the mainstream media, the government, and popular opinion. It requires no effort, and does not upset their existence. Otherwise, of course, there'd be a responsibility to do something about it.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Leakey has made a fatally flawed assumption. He's giving the other side more credit than they really deserve. He assumes that they are genuine skeptics.
They aren't skeptics. They are religious zealots that view anything that contradicts their world view as a threat. They are also a throwback. They are behind the times about 500 years.
So adding another 30 years to that won't help.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
You make a serious mistake by referring to the thought processes of modern zealots as being a product of an earlier age. These individuals are 100% a product of the times in which we live. Some of the surface beliefs that they hold may have also been held 500 years ago, but people also knew the Earth was round 2000 years ago as well. Ideas do not actually age, they are either more or less accurate or useful.
Point is, you don't understand what they are thinking if you consign them to the Middle Ages. They don't know what it was like in the medieval period any more than you do. They have cell phones, computers and use products of science all the time. They aren't rebelling against scientific advances, they are rebelling against what they view as an assault on their worldview and how they feel society should be structured. They don't like evolution because they can't see how it can mean that humans are still special. You overcome that, and you will have a lot less resistance.
I sometimes feel that the legitimate interest that some scientists have in how close we are to certain other animal species tends to come off as them going a little too far towards believing that we are nothing special. We clearly are pretty darn different, even superior, based on certain criteria but not others. People want the story to be about themselves. You may consider that arrogant, but honestly, there's little harm in it. Nature isn't going to be offended one way or the other.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
alternately, "If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't be any religious people".
Re: (Score:3)
I agree.
Never thought I'd hear Leakey say something that stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Funny)
Why what? Why are we here? Evolution. If you're asking for the greater purpose in life, there is none. Our lives are meaningless to everyone and everything in the universe except for each of us.
Congratulations! You just failed self-actualization.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, that's as much of a belief as if you believed a giant sky fairy created you. There is no proof that there is no greater purpose in life either. That's your opinion based on the fact that you see no merit in religious texts as opposed to scientific advances. Even the most hardcore acceptance of the debunking of religious texts doesn't eliminate the possibility of a deity of some form previously unknown.
Evolution is not the "why", it is merely part of the "how". Perhaps there is really no "why", but I don't know anyone who can answer that question with any confidence who is not doing so irrationally.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does there have to be a why? Just because you want to project some meaning on the universe doesn't mean that there is any meaning.
And that still doesn't speak to science. Even if there is a WHY, that doesn't make any or all science false or questionable.
Human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors millions of years ago in Africa. The fossil and genetic evidence are overwhelming. If you feel some great desire to find a big "WHY" to all of it, that's fine, but that does not change the facts themselves.
Re:Don't bet on it. (Score:4, Insightful)
And if I am sitting here enjoying my coffee in the great expanse of the Universe, due to a roll of the cosmic dice, holy cow! Now that takes alot of faith!
It doesn't take faith. It just requires you to ignore the absurdity of your choice to drink the coffee. The fact that you continue to perform your daily routines (eating, showering, and drinking coffee) while you acknowledge that your entire existence is inconsequential to the Universe is absurd.
Some people try to get away from this absurdity by pretending that they have a key place in the Universe because it was created by a god or gods. I'm sure that there is a small number of people who are delusional enough that they truly have faith. But the vast majority latches onto this belief structure, not from faith, but as an alternative to acknowledging absurdity. It is less painful to say maybe a god does exist that to know that everything you do (love, kill, cure cancer, build and detonate A-bombs, etc.) won't matter in a Universe such as ours. And even if you were a god, your existence would still be absurd. It would be like you were playing a Sim City game with infinite wealth.
Writing this post is absurd, and I acknowledge that. Absurdity is something you cannot escape from. But my internal programming tells me that absurdity and meaninglessness are different concepts. I can find meaning in a completely absurd life.
Don't count on it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't count on it (Score:4, Insightful)
Your fatal mistake is to assume that everyone having doubts about evolution is a hardboiled creationist.
Re:Don't count on it (Score:5, Insightful)
They are.
Re:Don't count on it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't count on it (Score:5, Funny)
A series of elves? Now that's just stupid. Obviously the elves are pulling in parallel.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if it's not distinguishable from gravity, that's not the realm of science. Science says that stuff will fall at a measured rate. Until scientists have figured out the mechanism of gravity empirically (which is not settled yet) it may as well be a series of elves as warped space. Doesn't really matter, as long as it's predictable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's no more or less stupid than it popping into existence 6,000 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Witness the destruction of false logic via reductio ad absurdum
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have no doubts that based on the evidence that we see *now*, that evolution appears to be the correct way that life came to being.
Evolution has nothing to do with life coming to being. Evolution starts right AFTER life came to being.
I realize this is fanciful, and the odds are really high that this didn't happen, but who is to say that six thousand years ago something didn't just pop everything into existence fully formed, *including* all of the evidence?
So? Even if we entertain the ridiculously improbable possibility that the entire universe popped into existence 6,000 years ago along with physical evidence suggesting nearly 14 billion years of history, the only impact on evolution will be that it's been going on for 6,000 years instead of 3.5 billion years. You can still watch evolution happen right in front of your own eyes. Given what we know about DNA
Re: (Score:3)
What you're running into is what philosophers of science call the underdetermination of theory by evidence (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/). The basic idea is this: no finite amount of empirical evidence can ever uniquely support a single theoretical hypothesis. But what I think you're missing (and, I think what others are trying to illustrate with examples involving elves) is that this is a problem with every theory, not just evolution.
The obvious question, then, is how to
Re:Don't count on it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Your fatal mistake is to assume that everyone having doubts about evolution is a hardboiled creationist.
Your fatal mistake is not understanding Set Theory.
Wishful thinking. (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a group of people who do not care about the evidence - the Bible says so, so there it is. That's not going to change just because you amass more evidence.
On the other hand, there are a group of people who believe in God who also believe evolution was the method God used to create all of the different kinds of life we see. That is not something you can prove or disprove, therefore it's not in the realm of science. In other words, you want people to keep their religions hands off science, great. Keep your scientific hands off God. They don't have to be mortal enemies.
Day-age creationism (Score:4, Informative)
There is a group of people who do not care about the evidence - the Bible says so, so there it is.
But what the Bible teaches is not at all inconsistent with a multibillion-year-old universe. God created the universe in six ages [wikipedia.org], figuratively called "days" in Genesis 1. Notice that nowhere does the story of creation in Genesis mention an "evening and morning" for the seventh "day", which makes the 24-hour interpretation less likely. This and other mentions of God's rest (e.g. in Hebrews) indicate that the seventh age is ongoing.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it was my understanding that the Hebrew word that is translated into English as "day" in Genesis 1 is the same word that is used to refer to the period of time from sunset until the following sunset.
Take from that what you will...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If only there were some explanation for things being written with an intended meaning different than the literal meaning.
Metaphorically speaking, that's a tough nut to crack. Oh well.
Re: (Score:3)
And the English bible is also a translation of a translation.
Another reason literalism is silly.
Hebrew yôm (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it was my understanding that the Hebrew word that is translated into English as "day" in Genesis 1 is
...the word yôm (Strong's H3117).
the same word that is used to refer to the period of time from sunset until the following sunset.
Among other meanings. It can also refer to an indefinite period, much as English day can. Compare English "one of these days", "back in the day", etc. It has similar metaphorical meaning in Hebrew [oldearth.org], and what is described as happening on some creative "days" cannot happen in 24 hours [godandscience.org]. See also Genesis 2:4, where Moses refers to the six creative "days" as one "day" [watchtower.org], and 2 Peter 3:8, where Peter compares God's concept of a "day" to a millennium to indicate that God operates on a different timescale from humans.
Re: (Score:3)
You laugh, but go the Jack Chick's site. Not only does Jack Chick hate non-christians, he hates you if you read the wrong translation of the bible. It's the same attitude as the Taliban. You're not Muslim: they hate you. You're in the wrong sect of Islam or the wrong tribe: they hate you.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe I've actually heard a pretty convincing case that the Genesis' parallel accounts of creation pretty clearly follow a poetic structure. Seems to me that makes a stronger case for the author(s) not having intended a strictly literal understanding.
Re:Wishful thinking. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a group of people who do not care about the evidence - the Bible says so, so there it is.
Strawman. Right in the summary Leakey is quoted as saying "It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God." Saying that the bible doesn't cover the topic of evolution is very different from saying that the bible denies or precludes it. There may be people who make that claim, but I don't see any in this discussion, and you certainly haven't directly addressed any here.
Leakey says the bible doesn't explain creation, and many believers in the bible say that the bible's purpose has never been to explain the science of all things. Why are some folks, particularly here on /., bent on construing this as some sort of Empire versus Rebel Alliance dichotomy?
Re: (Score:3)
Science says nothing about the probability of a God. It is only concerned with what is testable. God is not testable (and I think deliberately so), so probabilities don't even have a bearing on the conversation.
Put another way, if God does not want to be seen in a specific context, it will not be seen - and that will appear as a low probability. Any God worth its salt would be able to show itself in a manner of its own choosing, when and how it feels appropriate. And it would seem that the realm of scie
Unfortunately not in the USA (Score:3)
Where some people still believe in the literal truth of Genesis
I doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
The debate over evolution should've been history a century ago.
When a segment of the population refuses to accept scientific evidence, how is more of such evidence going to convince them?
And that's why he's wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The debate about evolution was history a century ago. I'm sure you've heard of the Scopes trial [wikipedia.org], but the public opinion shifted away from creationism towards science, and went even further with the national focus on and trust in science after Sputnik.
We've regressed. That's all there is to it.
You wish. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be honest here. Even if we got our hands on Rick Berman's time machine and collected video evidence of every stage of human evolution from single-celled sludge to the "Alien Nation Reject" John Crichton, you'd STILL have the noisy nutcases "debating" it, because some 400-year-old book says it was a magic man in the sky.
Re:You wish. (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. But I also imagine that there are people who could have seen Jesus perform miracles, and then seen him dead on a cross, and then seen him arise 3 days later. And they still wouldn't believe.
As someone else in this conversation stated, you can find dogmatism on any side of a debate.
That's why it's important that each of us consider all the facts carefully, when it really matters what we believe. Both sides tend to have smart people, average people, and crack-pots advocating for their position.
No. No it won't. (Score:5, Informative)
I am a Christian. However, the overwhelming evidence is that the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old, life on Earth is Billions of years old and yes, my great^50000 grandfather was an ape. Yet, not matter what the evidence, there is a contigent who will ignore it. It is human nature to look at facts through the lens you wish to view it. One intelligent person I was disucssing fusion with denies that fusion was the power of the stars, saying instead that it is gravity that produces the energy of the Sun. I was dumbfounded. Even after asking why we see millions of stars with different colors and asked him how his model accounted for this, he could not answer. After asking why the Sun isn't shrinking rapidly as the equations would indicate they would have to to produce the amount of energy output of the Sun, he couldn't answer. Did his opinion change? Nope. Facts don't often change opinions.
So, no, new evidence won't change anything. From my perspective, the debate was over about 150 years ago. Now we just have yelling.
Re: (Score:3)
As a Christian, evolution should be freeing you up to ponder the spiritual meaning of creation. Again, healthy religion will not take bible writings literal (it does massive injustice to the document) and be considered with the "why" and not the "how."
Re:No. No it won't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically, he is, to a degree, correct. The pressures at the center of the sun that cause initiation of fusion are caused by gravity. What we are seeing now is a balance between the outward pressures caused by fusion and the inward pressures caused by gravity. The reason supernovas are so violent is that the star runs out of fuel, the outward pressures get too high, and the whole thing just collapses in on itself very quickly.
That said, if he is denying that fusion is the process (or one of the major processes) that keeps the star from collapsing in on itself and creates the energy that causes the radiant heat we see, well, he's beyond hope.
Of course it won't be history (Score:5, Insightful)
Creationists are old hands at doing all of the above but the technique is common to denialists of all shades - moon hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, global warming deniers. The same tactics every time.
Thoughts as a former Creationist. (Score:5, Interesting)
Growing up very religious in a small town, I really thought that I knew what evolution was, and why it was wrong. It seemed so silly to me that 'scientists' could believe in this conjecture,er 'theory' full of 'missing links'. Clearly it was a conspiracy by godless atheists (where I now seem to comfortably fit in) to drown out the 'Truth'.
Then at age 18 I got the internet and began to discover that I never, in fact, had ever been taught what Evolution really was. I had been taught a fantasy, an imaginary concoction that nobody actually believed in. As we all have seen, Creationists create a straw man simplification of evolutionary theory and then attack the straw man, rather than attacking the real thing.
So I set out with my newly acquired knowledge. Surely, I though, now that I know that we've only been taught a mistaken notion of what evolutionary theory is, I can convince some people. Boy oh boy was I ever wrong. The first responses I got was, quite literally, "how dare you accuse our religion of LYING to us. They wouldn't lie to us". And so forth. I learned a lot about logical fallacies. The straw man. The fallacious appeal to false authority (look, this 'scientist' says evolution is fake, therefore it is). The argument from ridicule ("Man was made from monkeys, what kind of nitwit believes that"). It was a fascinating and revealing time in my life, and the clear intellectual dishonesty I saw compelled me to change my life. Within a couple years I went from being a homophobic creationist to going out to queer parties, not because I was gay, but because I discovered many of my friends were queer, and hadn't told me for obvious reasons.
I am reminded of this Salon article talking about how social conservatives basically assign a lot of emotion and identity to their belief. They think it is rude if others challenge their beliefs, yet they desire to push their beliefs on everyone else. http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_ugly_delusions_of_the_educated_conservative/ [salon.com]
In the end, you cannot convince people who do not want to challenge their presuppositions and assertions. What will happen in the future, is that we will continue to move on and embrace exciting new advances, technologies, medicines that stem from biology, while those who do not understand it will simply be left behind.
Re: (Score:3)
In the end, you cannot convince people who do not want to challenge their presuppositions and assertions. What will happen in the future, is that we will continue to move on and embrace exciting new advances, technologies, medicines that stem from biology, while those who do not understand it will simply be left behind.
I like your post. Your last point is near to what I wanted to say.
I think the argument pitting evolution entirely against creationism is a mistake. Some people who are brought up believing something would rather be wrong than admit they were wrong. If evolution guys really want to help the creationists instead of "beat them", then they should do it gently. Find a middle ground. Start by proposing something that doesn't immediately insult them, something that doesn't challenge their pride.
From the summa
Good Omens (Score:3)
Or, Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman were right, and it's just a sign that God has a sense of humor:
The whole first chapter* of Good Omens is on the Harper Collins website: http://www.harpercollins.com/features/pratchettBooks/excerpt.aspx?isbn=9780060853969 [harpercollins.com]
* I *think* that it's the intro + first chapter, as I believe the first chapter started 'It wasn't a dark and stormy night.'
A logic error (Score:3)
It is flawed to believe that MORE evidence will bring about change in a group that is ignoring evidence.
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Funny)
Logic and faith don't really co-mingle well.
Well that's logical, so I can't believe it.
Re:Obviously missed something... (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting article I read on that this morning (written by a climate denialist, but on the topic of a legitimate study):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:FIRST (Score:4, Funny)
FIRST? [usfirst.org]
Having started involvement with FIRST over a decade ago, I would like to thank you for the OT advertising.
False Dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)
Very few (and let's face it, wacky) sects out there actually refuse to accept Darwin's theories of evolution these days, so I'm not really seeing the story here.
Let me make that clearer still: Most Christian sects have no problems with Darwin or evolution, and the largest/original sect has never formally condemned it [telegraph.co.uk], even back when it was new and untested. That link also is an example of it being embraced by Christianity.
Certainly, again, there are nuts who take the Bible waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too literally. But really... how many of them actually read Slashdot again? I mean, it's cool that Leakey is thinking that things will be easier to understand for the kids and all, but it's not like there's nothing really new you will ever dig up in the lineage of Homo Sapiens Sapiens that going to convince anyone not otherwise convinced by now.
So, err, what was the point of this again? Outside of allowing posters to post various bigotries in a socially acceptable manner, I'm not seeing why the story should be given anything more than just a 'oh, okay - cool.' attitude. Mod me down all you like, because I know it'll come, but seriously - Evolution is a non-issue these days.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Teaching_of_evolution_and_intelligent_design [wikipedia.org]
Mitt Romney "“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe, and I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”
Re:False Dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:False Dichotomy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:False Dichotomy (Score:5, Informative)
So yes, you are correct. There are nuts who take the bible WAY too literally. But 40% means, even with a strong margin for error, over 100 million people in the US think evolution isn't real. I don't think you should necessarily be modded down, but I do think you might want to take a strong look at the incredibly anti-science and anti-intellectual movement that is GAINING, not losing, steam in America.
Re:False Dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:False Dichotomy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What is this, "despise" Creationists? (Score:4, Insightful)
I care. Because people who don't even believe the Earth is as old as the Cambrian explosion (or Mesopotamia for that matter) control my state legislature and try to influence what gets taught to my daughter in schools.
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Funny)
Some people still believe that humans rode dinosaurs to work. No amount of fossil evidence can change that kind of stupid.
Captcha: detest
Nobody believes that. They believe that people *used* dinosaurs at work.
It's well known that ancient people actually rode to work in foot-powered log cars mounted on stone rollers.
Re: (Score:3)
If sexual reproduction didn't help organisms to survive (it does, by decreasing the propagation of malformed genes while promoting the propagation and intermingling of superior genes), then we sexual reproducers would be overwhelmed and be out-competed by non-sexual reproducers as a matter of course.
As for light sensitive cells, those could have evolved a billion times before they were hooked up to a pain receptor. The previo