Was Darwin Wrong?

[manu1959]

One more thought on this topic..

There's a LAW in science called Thermaldynamics which, in part, states that all things progressively get worse.

This LAW aburptly stops all arguments for evolution as it's a THEORY that goes against that LAW - Laws are scientific absolutes that are irrefutable.

To say that evolution led to the creation of mankind would be like saying if I leave my aluminmum garbage cans out long enough, they'll eventually turn into an Acura NSX - after all, their both made from aluminum (NSX's have an aluminum body)....

i recycle and given the amount of coors light i have consumed i can only assume that i have paid for my nsx twice

 

[Isaac Brock]

One more thought on this topic..

There's a LAW in science called Thermaldynamics which, in part, states that all things progressively get worse.

This LAW aburptly stops all arguments for evolution as it's a THEORY that goes against that LAW - Laws are scientific absolutes that are irrefutable.

To say that evolution led to the creation of mankind would be like saying if I leave my aluminmum garbage cans out long enough, they'll eventually turn into an Acura NSX - after all, their both made from aluminum (NSX's have an aluminum body)....

I'm afraid you've misinterpretted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A more complex molecule can form spontaneously if heat is released in an amount of energy greater than needed to stabilize the molecule Examples of this happening in nature are Nitrate from Nitrogen, organic acids from carbon dioxide.

The rule only states that the universe itself progresses to more randomness. It does not state that an individual entity must always become more random.

The basic law for if a reaction will occur is based on Gibbs free energy (call it universal randomness):

Gibbs Energy (dE) = Net Entropy Change in Subject (randomness, dS) + Net Heat Release to Universe (dH)

If dE is positive, than a reaction will occur. If more energy is received by means of releasing heat, than is needed to become less random than a reaction can spontaneously occur.

How does this related to biological organisms? Biological organisms are incredible energy consumers. Very few processes on Earth are so good at creating entropy. The larger the organism, the greater it is at creating entropy, though it is not linear by any means as that would then violated the 2nd law.

Aluminum cans can never become a car because it has not process to create entropy. Biological organisms can become larger organisms, because it can process heat and add overall entropy to the universe.

 

[Mariner]

right about the thermodynamic law, which says that the entropy of a complete system must always increase. All that means is that even when you tidy your house or build a car (creating order), you must create a sum total greater amount of disorder at the same time. In the case of cleaning your house, you disorder the coal molecules that were oxidated in the electric plant which powered your vacuum cleaner, and in the case of the car, you disorder the natural world in the process of acquiring the bits and pieces for the car, and you generate large amounts of disordered heat in the process too. The car looks nice in the end, but in some total, you've made a mess.

The difference between leaving your aluminum cans out and biological evolution is that organic molecules do indeed--unlike Acuras--tend to form spontaneously. Amino acids are easily made by mixing together simple elements that would have been present in the early earth's atmosphere and adding a little energy in the form of, say, lightning. They're hardy enough to be found even on comets and asteroids. Cells are little skins of fat molecules enclosing a variety of describable cellular processes. Again, it's easy to imagine such fat globules forming, since fats tend to form skins all by themselves (drop oil in the ocean, and you get a vast skin one molecule thick). Computer simulations have no trouble demonstrating that given a few billion years, self-replicating molecules could indeed evolve, and there's no reason they couldn't evolve into us. I think it's awe-inspiring, not disheartening, for this to be the true origin of our existence.

Anti-evolutionists should ask themselves why they so willingly believe far more outlandish scientific theories (like quantum mechanics, which completely undoes normal notions of causality and space, or relativity, which undoes usual notions of time) while rejecting a relatively sedate, though breathtaking, theory like the Theory of Evolution. Believe me, quantum mechanics (which I studied before becoming a physician) is weirder than weird, but it's also the best verified theory in the history of science (true to 40 decimal places).

I realize it's offensive to a literal reading of the bible to contemplate the earth's being over 4000 years old, but don't you think it's time, after 2000 years of retreating on the issue, for Christians finally to give up promoting your Bible as science? I have every respect for the holy Book's moral insights, and believe, as I said above, that they might be more necessary than ever in today's world.

Read Darwin before your criticize him. Several generations of Christians have given up their creationist beliefs after pondering his thinking, and for good reason: Darwin is deeply convincing.

I have question for creationists--if you'd like your creation story told in schools, can I also tell my (Hindu) one? Or the Gilgamesh epic of Sumeria? Or all the thousands of other creation stories that humans have imagined and recorded? If not, why not? To privilege one religion's story over others' would be unfair, no?

Mariner.

 

[WeAreLegion]

Read Darwin before your criticize him. Several generations of Christians have given up their creationist beliefs after pondering his thinking, and for good reason: Darwin is deeply convincing.

I am doing so now. It's been many years since I have read it and in light of your your last post I got a copy of the book. I'm looking forward to discussing with you when I get refreshed on the subject.

I have question for creationists--if you'd like your creation story told in schools, can I also tell my (Hindu) one? Or the Gilgamesh epic of Sumeria? Or all the thousands of other creation stories that humans have imagined and recorded? If not, why not? To privilege one religion's story over others' would be unfair, no?

Mariner.

I think that the US is still largely a Christian country, and it was definitely founded on Christian principles. While I wouldn't be perturbed personally for schools to tell all of the versions of creation I can see why some folks would be.

Just to play devil's advocate, how would I fare in India if I wanted to have Christian ideals taught? Who would bend over backwards to accomodate that? When people come to the US they should realize that it is largely a Christian nation and they should plan accordingly instead of trying to change all of the rules in an attempt to create a country like the one they just left.

 

[manu1959]

i call bullshit......the world has been around for millions of years ...entropy and the destruction of the world would have occurred by now.......oh wait you all forgot chaos theory....which randomly fucks the whole entropy thing up....or maybe god just hasn't decided to end it all for us yet....

 

[CivilLiberty]

I do believe the editors at Geographic got the title wrong. It should have read, "<i>Just how ignorant can Americans be?</i>"

Yea, but they'd probably piss off some off their readers with a headline like that -- not good when you're in the business of selling magazines.

It's up to us in the newsgroup/forums to piss people off!





Andy

 

[CSM]

Yea, but they'd probably piss off some off their readers with a headline like that -- not good when you're in the business of selling magazines.

It's up to us in the newsgroup/forums to piss people off!





Andy

Glad you have a worthy goal.

 

[Mr. P]

Yea, but they'd probably piss off some off their readers with a headline like that -- not good when you're in the business of selling magazines.

It's up to us in the newsgroup/forums to piss people off!





Andy

Or maybe they're trying to be objective Journalists. Wow what a concept, Huh?

 

[Mariner]

You'd do very well in India as a Christian--in fact India has a large Christian minority, and a small Jewish one too, as well as bits and pieces of every other religion imaginable. India has never started a war over religion, and is naturally tolerant. The recent development of Hindu nationalism in opposition to Pakistan is an entirely new development after 5000 years of continuous, remarkably peaceful coexistence with many other religions.

My mom attended an all female Christian medical school which opened before Harvard Med, where I teach, admitted its first woman

To reply with a devil's advocate question of my own: how will the pro-school-voucher private school folk feel when Muslims in America set up their own madrasas here, potentially teaching their children a generally anti-Christian viewpoint just as a private Christian school might teach its students that all other religions adherents are bound for hell? Wouldn't it be better to foster a public educational space where kids of different backgrounds mix rather than avoiding one another?

Enjoy the Darwin : )

Mariner.

 

[Mr. P]

...
To reply with a devil's advocate question of my own: how will the pro-school-voucher private school folk feel when Muslims in America set up their own madrasas here, potentially teaching their children a generally anti-Christian viewpoint just as a private Christian school might teach its students that all other religions adherents are bound for hell? Wouldn't it be better to foster a public educational space where kids of different backgrounds mix rather than avoiding one another?

Enjoy the Darwin : )

Mariner.

Your premise (devil's advocate) is so flawed it's funny..

The only reason I or anyone I know would like vouchers is to simply make a choice
in schools. Not as many people as you think want to move to a religious school, nor avoid each other. It's more a desire to take back control of, quality, by who, and where our children are educated.
Sure there are some that want the religious path, so what?
But most, that favor vouchers, are not walking that path, instead they're
looking for a good quality education path. The ABC's, the 3 R's and positive results...etc.

If one has the typical school board of liberals, which many do, their hands are tied...like it or not. Go where THEY say you must go...deal with the staff THEY choose, etc. So vouchers provide a freedom to make the choice that you see fit for YOUR child. And hey..despite the "It takes a village" shit, it is up to the parents, not the government. Just let us do it. That's my 2 cents.

 

[manu1959]

i think i will set up a christian school in mecca.........oh wait i can't ...i am not even allowed in the city......

 

[MissileMan]

I am doing so now. It's been many years since I have read it and in light of your your last post I got a copy of the book. I'm looking forward to discussing with you when I get refreshed on the subject.



I think that the US is still largely a Christian country, and it was definitely founded on Christian principles. While I wouldn't be perturbed personally for schools to tell all of the versions of creation I can see why some folks would be.

Just to play devil's advocate, how would I fare in India if I wanted to have Christian ideals taught? Who would bend over backwards to accomodate that? When people come to the US they should realize that it is largely a Christian nation and they should plan accordingly instead of trying to change all of the rules in an attempt to create a country like the one they just left.

The theory of creationism is based solely on religious belief as there is no scientific evidence to support it. If you want your kids to learn creationism, teach it to them at Sunday School or at home, but leave the fairy tales out of public school curriculum.

Why is it that the bible isn't considered a history of christianity rather than humanity? That would make much more sense.

 

[5stringJeff]

The theory of creationism is based solely on religious belief as there is no scientific evidence to support it. If you want your kids to learn creationism, teach it to them at Sunday School or at home, but leave the fairy tales out of public school curriculum.

Your first statement is absolutely false. There is scientific evidence to support creationism. In fact, there's a whole scientific movement behind it. It's called Intellegent Design.

 

[MissileMan]

Your first statement is absolutely false. There is scientific evidence to support creationism. In fact, there's a whole scientific movement behind it. It's called Intellegent Design.

I'll give you the same challenge I gave -=d=-. Please post some of this scientific evidence. BTW, everything I found dealing with creationism on the web had a religious, not scientific, slant. Renaming/recategorizing biblical stories as "intelligent design" doesn't make it science.

 

[manu1959]

I'll give you the same challenge I gave -=d=-. Please post some of this scientific evidence. BTW, everything I found dealing with creationism on the web had a religious, not scientific, slant. Renaming/recategorizing biblical stories as "intelligent design" doesn't make it science.

as some point a species did not exist then it did....boom...creationism

 

[Mariner]

I could be totally off base, of course, since I'm a liberal and may not understand conservative thinking, but I was long under the impression that the main reason for Rebublican support of school voucher programs was in order to gain support for funneling education dollars to religious schools. A quick google search showed plenty of articles which support my idea (but again, it's not an issue I follow in depth). Here's a sample, from the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0628/p01s04-usju.html

GOP Jeff--take a look at my post above on "Intelligent Design." It's a smokescreen intelligently designed to look scientific, but it fails the basic premise of scientific hypotheses--that it can be "falsified." How would you prove Intelligent Design wrong? Since no experiment can be designed that can prove it wrong, then it ain't science, it's faith. I have no problem with people believing whatever creation myth they want to believe--but I have a big problem with wanting to teach your Christian creation myth as science to non-Christian kids--as any non-Christian parent would.

Mariner.

 

[Isaac Brock]

I could be totally off base, of course, since I'm a liberal and may not understand conservative thinking, but I was long under the impression that the main reason for Rebublican support of school voucher programs was in order to gain support for funneling education dollars to religious schools. A quick google search showed plenty of articles which support my idea (but again, it's not an issue I follow in depth). Here's a sample, from the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0628/p01s04-usju.html

GOP Jeff--take a look at my post above on "Intelligent Design." It's a smokescreen intelligently designed to look scientific, but it fails the basic premise of scientific hypotheses--that it can be "falsified." How would you prove Intelligent Design wrong? Since no experiment can be designed that can prove it wrong, then it ain't science, it's faith. I have no problem with people believing whatever creation myth they want to believe--but I have a big problem with wanting to teach your Christian creation myth as science to non-Christian kids--as any non-Christian parent would.

Mariner.

Though I agree with you on Evolution, I'm not sure if agree on what you just said. We cannot reproduce evolution on a grand scale yet, given the short time frame of observation. So in that sense, we're in the same boat as Creationism.

Where most evolutionary scientists would take issue with creationism is on the merits of its scientific proof. To say that to hold creationism true as a thoery is to re-map most scientific fields in an understatement. Not only would the field of biology have to be adjusted, but assuming creationism as correct, would also completely re-write many other theories which involve having a universe it the billions of years, rather than less than ten thousand.

In essence evolution can hold as a theory as long at its biological facts are plausible.

For creationism to hold as a thoery is the find not only biological facts being plausible, but geologic, hydrogeologic, astonomy, physics, radiative chemistry etc being patently false. It's a tough burden of proof.

 

[MrMarbles]

For creationism to hold as a thoery is the find not only biological facts being plausible, but geologic, hydrogeologic, astonomy, physics, radiative chemistry etc being patently false. It's a tough burden of proof.

And a mouth full!

 

[Eightball]

Such is the title of an artical in the November "<i>National Geographic</i>". In that article they cite a phone survey in which 45% of US adults surveyed believe, despite the prponderance of evidence to the contrary, that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so."

I do believe the editors at Geographic got the title wrong. It should have read, "<i>Just how ignorant can Americans be?</i>"

Romans Chapter 1 has a pretty strong response to those that refute that there is a divine creator....verses 19,20,21 and 22 say, "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they becme fools,...."

Well, folks........even as a little kid......I used to marvel at all of nature around me, from the smallest little bug to the stars in the night sky. There was something inside me that said, "this can't be just one big accident". Yes, as the scripture says, we indeed do not have an excuse for saying we are just the result of a primordial soup that just happened because few billion extremely complex molecules just happen to make contact in just the right way to start even a unicellular bit of life.

Too many things in creation completely go against logic.....i.e. the Duck Billed Platypus......comes to mind......

I'm what is called an old world Christian.......in that I believe that science and scripture do mix together very well indeed. Science is common sense........just like scripture. I believe that the earth is indeed billions of years old. Isotope dating is very realiable, and validates that many examples of earth strata indicate a very old earth. Yet, even with this incredible age......the likely hood or time needed for a primordial soup to pop out complex enough molecules that could even be the most basic building blocks of life......is far-fetched. Now if we could even some how have one DNA strand occur by chance, the likelihood of a second kicks up the "bad" odds many fold. Organic molecules need considerable energy to just stay intact......and to create DNA/RNA molecules through chance let alone......even Amino acids......is tripping on the absurd in the odds department.

I can see the possibility of minute changes within species....through mutation........but, there are some far-fetched odds.......in bringing organisms of the complexity of human being to a reality in 3.5 billion years. That's really not very much time to in the chance department.

If anyone would like to take a peek at a very famous world renown Astro-Physicist......who sees complete compatibility of science and Biblical creation.......check out Dr. Hugh Ross.... http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml He's been on many talk shows.....and has written extensively.

http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

Regard, Eightballsidepocket

 

[Mariner]

You wrote that evolution and creation "science" are in the same boat when it comes to provability, because we can't reproduce evolution on a grand scale. I disagree--I think the small-scale ways in which we see evolution work (e.g. moths evolving their colors to match sooty cities, pigeons evolving in city environments, dog breeding--remember that all dogs came from a single wolf-like creature and now look different simply by selective breeding) combined with the breathtakingly detailed and consistent evidence of the distribution of species (Darwin's evidence), the equally breathtaking evidence in the fossil record (which accords perfectly with radiocarbon dating, all sorts of geologic dating, etc.), and finally the equally breathtaking evidence from genetics (we share 98% of our genes with chimps and an amazing percentage with plants, for example) provides adequate support for evolution and the unity of life from all sides. But even if someone doesn't accept all this evidence as absolute proof, he/she still has a ton of work to do to propose an alternate theory. Simply saying "God made it" doesn't count as a scientific-type explanation, since there are millions of specific details to be explained.

Just having "a feeling" that evolution doesn't make sense also doesn't count as science. Many people have "feelings" that turn out not to make sense. Science is unbelievably counterintuitive. Remember, everyone use to feel it was obvious that the earth couldn't be round. What idiots those scientists who couldn't see that you'd just fall off the other side!

Mariner.