 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| punkrainbow wrote: |
| ...Over time it was observed that only dark pepped moths survived because they were better camouflaged. It is logical to conclude that when pollution darkened the tree trunks natural selection caused the dark-coloured moths to become more common. Today this example is considered to be a classic demonstration of natural selection happening in observable time. |
If I remember right, the peppered moth case was one of those interesting after-the-fact discoveries. The data set wasn't live-caught moths, it was statistical surveys of moths from private insect collections made many, many decades afterwards. Nobody actually ever watched any interaction between moths and birds and soot-covered trees, it was just speculation trying to explain what they found in the collections. Although probably correct, it's still only a correlation. Nobody's ever done any work to establish that it is the true explanation, in addition to being the likely one.
Evolution is just gene frequency change over time. I've done evolution in my own beeyards by selecting for bees that didn't make me run away when I opened the beehive. The genes don't care whether selection pressure is from a human breeder or a predatory bird. Evolution occurs every day, and it's done by every animal or plant breeder in the world. Whether or not it was evolution that got us the species diversity we have now or not is a theory, and isn't one that people seem interested in testing. Maybe the biochemical people can come up with predictions to test. But mostly nobody bothers.
They seem to take it on, ummm, faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
punkrainbow
Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 301
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Anthony,
| Quote: |
| I hope this is not a 'naff' question, but could the dark pepped moths have survived because they adapted their camouflage in the same way that a chameleon or another animal or plant uses camouflage as a protection? |
That isn't a 'naff' question at all Anthony. The answer, based on the evidence is no. The peppered moths had no camouflage mechanism. The change in colour was entirely due to environmental factors. We know this because when air quality improved, the peppered moth changed back to its original colour. A camouflage mechanism would mean that the moth would have the capacity to change it's colour, depending on what it was sitting on. This has not been observed.
| Quote: |
| I am reluctant to separate the influence of intelligence from physical adaptations or other survival metamorphoses that appear to be beyond random evolution. Is it beyond acceptance that a universal intelligence is playing its part? |
It should be remembered that science as a discipline has a kind of starter bias. Scientists look for casual explanations (a+b=c) and not teleological explanations, (trying to detect design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in nature). Scientists don't ask teleological sort of questions and as a consequence they do not get those type of answers. This means that the odds are stacked against teleology from the start of modern science. To a great extent though, this bias has been justified because as time has gone we have seen that causal explanations better if empirical data. As the effectiveness of casual explanations have increased, a belief in 'telos ' has declined. This doesn't mean that traditional 'telos' explanations are unthinkable, they have just been shown to be less consistent with empirical data.
As far as Biology goes, I think evolution has adequately explained biological diversity without reference to an external 'intelligence'. In the context of evolutionary biology, organisms appear 'designed' because the best adoptions for survival have been weeded out by natural selection. This doesn't mean there isn't a God. Darwinism of itself does not disprove God's existence, it does however limit the feasibility of a particular model of how a hypothetical can God act based on biological evidence. It is not the tool of any particular totem, (be that atheism or theism), it is simply a scientific observation and therefore is neutral. In this vein the theologian Alistair McGrath argues that natural science leads neither to atheism nor to theism and I agree with him.
This doesn't mean that accepting evolution doesn't affect people's religious outlook because it does. If the idea of God as creator is central to you Anthony, then here is a possible way to harmonize your belief with scientific observation. Surely the best kind of creator God is one who would do things the easy way, i.e set the mechanism of the universe running in a particular way, then letting the universe produce life for itself? Isn't the idea that God would have to put the effort into creating each individual being like a human potter surely insulting to God? Isn't it more likely that a powerful God could simply make universe create life for him without the Lord needing to lift a metaphorical finger? If God could create things the easy way, why wouldn't he? And if God wanted to do it the easiest way, wouldn't he do it through the means of natural selection? Maybe this kind of view would make you a Deist like Voltaire, not a convention Theist, but certainly not an atheist. In my opinion, I don't think your hypothetical God conflicts with scientific data.
| Quote: |
| They seem to take it on, ummm, faith. |
Kevin, I think this is an unfair accusation and I think you know it is. Scientists continue collect large amounts of data and through correlation and deduction try and knit together a consistent model which can explain biological phenomena. It is not a matter of mere assertion, it is based on considerable evidence. True, evolution has become somewhat axiomatic in biological circles but that doesn't mean scientists have shut their minds to alternative possibilities. Most scientists I know would love to be proved wrong because then they would be closer to the truth. This is not the case with many Creationists who are determined to always be right, even if the evidence doesn't support one of their assertions.
_________________
I saw the infinite love of God. I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kevin roberts wrote: |
| Whether or not it was evolution that got us the species diversity we have now or not is a theory, and isn't one that people seem interested in testing. Maybe the biochemical people can come up with predictions to test. But mostly nobody bothers. |
Actually, there is a huge and constantly growing body of evidence--mostly in the fossil record--supporting the idea that the full diversity of life today is descended from far simpler organisms over the last 4 billion years or so. There is no serious scientific challenge to this evolutionary path.
What is in great question is not the descent of species but the various *mechanisms* by which that descent occurred, and continues to occur. There are periods of huge leaps forward in diversity that are hard to explain by our current understanding of how evolution works. But again, the big question is not whether evolution is behind the current diversity of life, but all the ways in which evolution works.
I also need to point out that using the word "theory" in science does not suggest a particular level of certainty or uncertainty, but explanatory scope. A theory, as opposed to a fact or a hypothesis, is a fairly complex framework for explaining and integrating a wide variety of facts and findings. You don't disprove a theory the way you disprove a hypothesis--you either extend and refine it or, if it loses its explanatory power over time, you discard it at some point.
A theory never becomes a fact.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| punkrainbow wrote: |
| Quote: |
| They seem to take it on, ummm, faith. |
Kevin, I think this is an unfair accusation and I think you know it is. Scientists continue collect large amounts of data and through correlation and deduction try and knit together a consistent model which can explain biological phenomena. It is not a matter of mere assertion, it is based on considerable evidence. |
Well, not all that unfair, Ben, really, but I apologize for poking at it a little hard. There's a difference between science and scientists. I've known lots of biologists and geologists who were frankly stupid and prejudiced. A race car can still have a lousy driver behind the wheel. I don't know if the peppered moth question ever had any evidence other than speculation. Correlation and deduction generate theories, but don't test them.
Look at plate tectonics. This was a classic paradigm shift in the mid-1960s, when over about 5 years there was a scientific revolution that suddenly accepted data that everybody had been rejecting for the previous 50. In 1960, you would be laughed out of the room if you believed that continents moved. In 1970, you were laughed out of the room if you didn't. There wasn't any new evidence, it was just that the winds of scientific acceptance had shifted to another quarter. Natural selection (not the same as evolution) had a similar shift after 1859, and genetics had a big change about 1910. I don't know much about physics, except Shima's reminder of electrons only having a statistical location in space makes my head hurt. The scientific community usually comes around to stuff like this, but often it doesn't make the decisions based on science.
Scientists often cling to their personal pet theories long after they're discredited, because they're only people. Sometimes they're willing to give up in the face of conflicting evidence, and sometimes they're not so quick. Lots of scientific relationships with ideas have to do with grant money, university politics, personality issues, and many other things that have little to do with science and more with the scientists who make a living from it.
When someone discovers a situation that can be explained through a theory that is currently fashionable, often the research stops short of actually testing whether it's true. There's very little grant money available for repeating someone else's experiments, and very little career incentive to do it. Sometimes nothing is proven, and corroborative "evidence" really doesn't exist. The belief that something has been proven is maintained on faith, not on focused evidence.
The peppered moth is a good example. Looking at insect collections as a sample assumes that the butterfly collectors were unbiased, and that the sample mirrored the real world. Did it? Most butterfly collectors lived in the country, perhaps. Maybe most sooty chimneys were in the industrial cities. Was this taken into account when they did the math? Were tree trunks really sooty early in the century, and cleaner later? Was this observed or measured, or just inferred as a reasonable supposition (did anybody look?) Did anybody ever go out and actually watch any birds eat moths? In America, Monarch butterflies are avoided by birds because they taste bad. What would happen to the bird theory if it is discovered that birds won't eat peppered moths? Could something else have caused a color change over 100 years, such as a newly introduced disease, or an industrial chemical in the rainwater? I may be completely wrong as to how to thoroughly the peppered moth work was done (I am often wrong, I know this). But the peppered moth seems to me to be a classic case of a scientific hypothesis being renamed as a scientific conclusion. It still remains to be tested today, I think.
But it's probably true, Ben, and I happily agree with you. Once I spent a day collecting Woodhouse toads on a sandy island in a 40-year old freshwater lake in Oklahoma. The young toads there were all the exact color as the sand, and all much lighter than the other toads on the mainland, where the soil was darker. Birds eat toads, too. But all I saw was a correlation, and I never demonstrated my suspicion to be the real explanation. There's lots of other examples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Ben-
It seems to me that I may have been rude in that last post by cranking on the science idea like a broken record. I apologize for being an overbearing SOB.
I get caught up in ideas and forget that there are people involved, and it seems too often that I just look for an excuse to hear myself lecture. Anyway, I'm sorry if I sounded like a jerk. I try not to be, sometimes successfully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
| Shay wrote: |
That being said, I don't think such things as psychic feelings or speaking in tongues are impossible, just very, very unlikely. |
Shay,  what do you mean when you say that "psychic feelings are unlikely"? |
Well, I suppose its as a guessed  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
punkrainbow
Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 301
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It seems to me that I may have been rude in that last post by cranking on the science idea like a broken record. I apologize for being an overbearing SOB. |
It's cool Kevin  This is the kind of discussion which is bound to push buttons and make us all very excitable. This, after all is, the 'God, the universe and everything' thread, so there's bound to be some diversity of opinion! Thanks for being such a gentlemen, I really appreciate it.
_________________
I saw the infinite love of God. I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| punkrainbow wrote: |
Hey Anthony,
| Quote: |
| I hope this is not a 'naff' question... |
That isn't a 'naff' question at all Anthony...
|
Okay, you Brits:
What in the world, please, is a "naff" question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
punkrainbow
Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 301
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Naff is British slang for anything which is considered inferior or substandard. It also has the connotation of denoting something silly or stupid. Isn't slang fun
_________________
I saw the infinite love of God. I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| punkrainbow wrote: |
| Surely the best kind of creator God is one who would do things the easy way, i.e set the mechanism of the universe running in a particular way, then letting the universe produce life for itself? Isn't the idea that God would have to put the effort into creating each individual being like a human potter surely insulting to God? Isn't it more likely that a powerful God could simply make universe create life for him without the Lord needing to lift a metaphorical finger? If God could create things the easy way, why wouldn't he? And if God wanted to do it the easiest way, wouldn't he do it through the means of natural selection? Maybe this kind of view would make you a Deist like Voltaire, not a convention Theist, but certainly not an atheist. In my opinion, I don't think your hypothetical God conflicts with scientific data. |
Ben, thank you, I agree. Surely, whatever is behind evolution is still an intelligent creative principle; I have no difficulty at all in accepting an intelligent universe. Perhaps, one question is whether this intelligence is personal of itself or personalised via its creation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CelticNorth
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 755
Location: East of Eden
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 1, 2008 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am still puzzeled why we blindly accept the Newtonian premise that because we see order and form in the universe, precise and measurable by our mathematical systems, that we proclaim the "world" designed by an unknown intelligence, and as a consequence, "created" by this intelligence, which we call God? David Hume debunked this presumption quite thoroughly over two centuries ago, yet we still cling to the antiquated theology that natural and systematic scientific perfections could only originate in the mind of God. God is equally just as mindless and reckless by the use of the same standard of logic and rationale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 2, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony wrote: |
Shay, what do you mean when you say that "psychic feelings are unlikely"? |
Oh, I didn't see this question- I don't think the normal confluence of chemicals, electrical impulses, and behavioral patterns are very conducive to true ESP, but that we do get hunches or likely feelings (a phone call that you know is a particular friend, being sure the batter's going to hit one high and to the side, getting a shiver walking over an unmarked grave) that aren't really psychic, they're just our brains processing subconscious information at a crazy-fast rate.
I think it's possible for true psychics to exist- but I think a lot of so-called psychics aren't actually receiving outside knowledge- that they're just really, really goof at accessing their subconscious and prodding it into noticing things other people don't, then putting that information together in a way that looks like magic, but that's really a very, very trained individual.
As a matter of fact, there's a TV show in the states about just that- it's a guy who's a savant at crime scene reading, but since no one will hire "A detective who notices things a lot," he passes himself off as a psychic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shay
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 885
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 2, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| punkrainbow wrote: |
| Naff is British slang for anything which is considered inferior or substandard. It also has the connotation of denoting something silly or stupid. Isn't slang fun |
Randomly, I always thought it was a corruption of Naive! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| McGuffey wrote: |
| I am still puzzeled why we blindly accept the Newtonian premise that because we see order and form in the universe, precise and measurable by our mathematical systems, that we proclaim the "world" designed by an unknown intelligence, and as a consequence, "created" by this intelligence, which we call God? David Hume debunked this presumption quite thoroughly over two centuries ago, yet we still cling to the antiquated theology that natural and systematic scientific perfections could only originate in the mind of God. God is equally just as mindless and reckless by the use of the same standard of logic and rationale. |
I think you've touched the heart of one of the really interesting questions with this last post.
Whether or not the universe is better explained by mechanical and ultimately unknowable causes, or by purposeful but ultimately unknowable causes seems to be merely a matter of flavor. Either view is logically equivalent to the other. Both follow quite logically from their respective premises, chosen beforehand without evidence (being premises).
I maintain that the universe can be explained by knowable causes, which are those perceived by me by my senses--visions, miracles, and so on. This third view of things is rejected by those who follow the first two, because they don't accept my own premise that believable evidence is possible. This is the argument say that says, "If I were to experience what might be called a miracle, it either didn't happen or I must be bonkers."
The question of whether science is "truer" than religion so far seems to boil down to what our preconceptions are going into the question. If religion is always wrong when it conflicts with science (although it may explain something with equal internal consistency), or science is always wrong under the same circumstances, then we're not arguing anything that can be known. We're just expressing different preferences for premises going in, like saying chocolate ice cream is tastier than vanilla. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kevin roberts wrote: |
| Whether or not the universe is better explained by mechanical and ultimately unknowable causes, or by purposeful but ultimately unknowable causes seems to be merely a matter of flavor. Either view is logically equivalent to the other. Both follow quite logically from their respective premises, chosen beforehand without evidence (being premises). |
The trick in your proposition here lies in the word "ultimately." While we cannot clearly know or discern the "ultimate" causes of the universe by exploration of purely mechanical phenomena, we *can* discern proximate, less-than-ultimate causes. We have clearly and demonstrably answered an astonishing range of questions this way. We have uncovered layer beyond layer of truth. I agree we will not uncover every layer, but that is not the point.
On the other hand, we have not not clearly and reliably answered *any* questions about the universe through assumptions of divine purpose. Ultimate or otherwise. Not a single one. A sense of purpose is an undeniable part of being alive and human, but it does not follow that purpose is intrinsic to the cosmos. Assuming that it does is simply projection.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
