America Doesn't Believe Evolution

[cwes99_03]

This thread aimed to place one specific critical "politicization of science in the USA" under a magnifying glass, the AAAS, the Antiscientism Evangelist in the USA, pointing to its role in the relatively low acceptance of Evolution in the USA vs in many other countries.

 

The ensuing discussion of the reasons for the low state of acceptance of evolution in the USA revealed the major role that religious thinking and attitudes in the USA play in non-acceptance of evolution. I tried to explain why and how religion evolved, as follows:

 

1) In my opinion as an amateur biologist-evolutionist, religion is religion is religion as far as biological evolution is concerned, and as far as we now know the earliest known evidence of human religion by Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis goes back around 100,000 years ago.

 

2) Religions have evolved in the minds of human communities/groups as means for the survival (survival = proliferation) of those specific groups, by means of instructed-adopted individual and social regimes that contribute to and advance the survival of the group. Simple obvious Darwinian evolution process.

 

 

Again, obviously you do not accept Darwinian evolution nor the scientific grounds for it. Therefore you will not accept any explanation of why and how religion evolved. This is your privilege and it probably helps you live with satisfaction. Good for you.

 

A "discussion" between persons thinking-speaking religiouslang and sciencelang is pointless; it is like trying to carry on a ping-pong game in which each of the two players plays on a different table. This is Absurd.

 

I think.

Respectfully,

Dov

 

Again, as Infinite and others on another thread about who is a teacher said, provide some evidence. Until you do, you are just sidestepping the issue.

The ideas that you and Turtle have about religious people and scientific people being unable to discuss things are what is preposterous.

By saying, and I paraphrase, "a discussion between persons of a religious viewpoint and those of a scientific viewpoint is impossible" is saying that people of a religious viewpoint cannot be scientific about things and vice versa. In other words, a scientist cannot be spiritual, there is no room for God in science. That in and of itself is an unscientific response, as nothing can be ruled out in science until there is evidence to the contrary.

 

Now quit trying to circumnavigate the issue. Back up your 2 points above by citing evidence for them.

I have backed up my point by citing Biblical evidence, which can be empirically verified through a study of languages, periods, and archaeology.

You so far have not provided any such evidence for the two statements you made in the previous post

1) that there were humans practicing religion 100,000 years ago

2) that religion is an evolving social experiment and has no divine origins.

[InfiniteNow]

I definitely appreciate the call for citations and evidence in support of claims, but am rather wary when one uses Biblical texts for this purpose. In fact, I'd discourage that.

 

Also, a way around citing evidence (while not ideal) is to state that it is one's opinion. Then, that one can speak about the evidence in place which led them to that opinion.

 

Besides, how would one "prove" divine origin?

Also, you should first define religion before you ask if people were or were not practicing it 100K y/a.

 

 

Falling frequently from the umpires chair,

[cwes99_03]

Well said. Religion already defined in the religion vs. philosophy thread from about a year ago.

[Turtle]

The ideas that you and Turtle have about religious people and scientific people being unable to discuss things are what is preposterous. ...

 

I have backed up my point by citing Biblical evidence, which can be empirically verified through a study of languages, periods, and archaeology.

 

In this case I have only expressed my idea (opinion? :P ) on your personal religious opinions (ideas?) CW, and your disability in understanding or constructing a logical argument. To whit, your argument (debate?) here is akin to the argument you carried on in the news section on what True North is. Your logic is so twisted in your arguments as to be bass ackwards, or in the euphemistic vernacular, preposterous.

It is just this kind of religiously oriented twisted logic that is the crux of this thread; Americans enamored of religious ideas refusing to admit any scientific discovery that contradicts their wholly buch. :edizzy:

[learnin to learn]

In this case I have only expressed my idea (opinion? :P ) on your personal religious opinions (ideas?) CW, and your disability in understanding or constructing a logical argument. To whit, your argument (debate?) here is akin to the argument you carried on in the news section on what True North is. Your logic is so twisted in your arguments as to be bass ackwards, or in the euphemistic vernacular, preposterous.

It is just this kind of religiously oriented twisted logic that is the crux of this thread; Americans enamored of religious ideas refusing to admit any scientific discovery that contradicts their wholly buch. :edizzy:

 

I personally will not refuse any scientific discovery that contradicts my beliefs. I see each new discovery as a working miracle, since science does provide the "miracles" of today! I personally think that it is impossible for science to "contradict" religion. I believe that they coexist. Does scientific discoveries contradict parts of the bible? Yes! But it does not contradict the message that the bible is trying to teach us.

[Turtle]

I personally will not refuse any scientific discovery that contradicts my beliefs. I see each new discovery as a working miracle, since science does provide the "miracles" of today! I personally think that it is impossible for science to "contradict" religion. I believe that they coexist. Does scientific discoveries contradict parts of the bible? Yes! But it does not contradict the message that the bible is trying to teach us.

 

I do not contend there is no wisdom, well writ literature, or occasional factual history in the bible , however just as wisdom is where one finds it, so is crap where one finds it. Proposing that crap is wisdom is preposterous; the emperor has no clothes. :P

[Freddy]

Sorry, I'm posting so much but I've been busy the past couple of days and am catching up.

 

What good would religion do to a small group of one family? Or would you be saying that the ancient Isrealites believed a bunch of made up stories about abraham and his family. Abraham was one man with a nephew Lot and their respective families. What good would inventing a religion do for them?

 

Further, if religion was just an invention of people thousands of years ago, how did those people accurately know things that scientists are just now discovering, such as the idea that the sun "hangs on nothing" for an example. Astronomers throughout many other lands, all thought the sun was suspended by something, a string of sorts. This was accepted for milennia as truth until just within the last few hundred years.

Until 1492 everyone thought the earth was flat, but 1500 BC, the Bible, and it's adherents, described the earth as round.

Nonsense, any educated person knew the world was round before Columbus' voyage. What you are refering to is the myth that was taught in grade schools 4 decades ago. Any history textbook today that asserts that Columbus proved that the Earth was round is wrong. As you are so fond of telling folks to study the Bible, you should study your history.

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

[Dov Henis]

Dear cwes99_03,

 

Reyr post #123:

 

Science and "Spirituality"

 

If you think that "a scientist can be spiritual" you are eligible for membership in the AAAS, the most "advanced" USA scientific organization, that plays a major role in upholding religious rather than scientific worldview in the USA. I do not understand what "spiritual" means, unless it is meant to be vague in order to circumvent "religious".

 

In my opinion a scientist may "believe" in "God" only in reference to some matters, and only because the concept "God" is different for every person. Writing as a 'scientism scientist', in my opinion whoever believes in a specific god of a specific religion cannot, plainly and obviously, be a scientist.

 

In the above I refer to a scientist that adheres to scientism, to the committment to assess and treat everything scientifically, and not to a person just practicing scientifically defined research/investigation rules and routines, whom I regard technician-to-technologist depending on the nature of the work subject.

 

I think,

 

Dov

[learnin to learn]

actually it was the catholic church who persecuted countless individuals for saying that the world was not flat. Didn't Galileo claim that the earth was round?

[Zythryn]

By saying, and I paraphrase, "a discussion between persons of a religious viewpoint and those of a scientific viewpoint is impossible" is saying that people of a religious viewpoint cannot be scientific about things and vice versa. In other words, a scientist cannot be spiritual, there is no room for God in science. That in and of itself is an unscientific response, as nothing can be ruled out in science until there is evidence to the contrary.

 

CW, I think you are being dishonest (either unknowingly to yourself, or purposely which I hope is not the case.

 

Whe Dov stated:

"A 'discussion' between persons thinking-speaking religiouslang and sciencelang is pointless; it is like trying to carry on a ping-pong game in which each of the two players plays on a different table. This is Absurd."

 

You then 'paraphased' his statement as:

"a discussion between persons of a religious viewpoint and those of a scientific viewpoint is impossible"

 

At best, I think that is inaccurate.

 

A similar stretch of paraphrasing your statement would be something like:

'talking to religious people is impossible'

or

'talking to scientific people is impossible'

 

Now, I don't want to incorrectly paraphrase Dov but I think it would be more accurate to say:

'A meaningful discussion between people using a reference solely based on faith and indoctrination and people that insist on empiracal, observation and testing of evidence is absurd'

 

Of course scientific and religious people can talk to each other. And many scientific people are religious and vis-versa. I don't believe that suggesting otherwise was anywhere close to what Dov was saying.

 

Dov, perhaps you could clarify for us as I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[Dov Henis]

Dov, perhaps you could clarify for us as I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

Two past items from my Blog:

 

(A)

Sep 21 2005. Dov, in Brights forum.

 

Gertrude Stein: " a rose is a rose is a rose "

HenisDov: " human culture is human culture is human culture "

 

Repeating ad nausea: both Religion and Science are human artifacts, inventions.

 

- Religion, historically, is a human phenotypic survival tool invention.

- Science is a human invention, a discipline plus a regime plus a method invented for uncovering patterns of things

 

All shades of Humanism, regardless of their base worldview, are human inventions for establishment and survival of a cultural constellation.

 

 

(:shrug:

Religion and ribosome

Oct 21 2004 + May 17 2005 Dov, in Science Forums.

 

In Challenges, "Science and Religion are Irreconcilable", Bercan says "I think that religion can't be discussed scientificly and vice versa".

 

I think that religion should and certainly can be discussed scientifically just as ribosome and RNA and DNA, as religion evolved for humans and functions for humans in the same manner and for the same ends as the inter- and intra-cell biological factors.

 

Re the "vice versa", science may be and is discussed by religious persons, as they are free to discuss whatever they wish and in any terms they wish. If they discuss science scientifically their comments might be scientifically valid. This sounds incosistent and strange, but it is common and widespread because many so-called "scientists", technologically/informationally experts in specific subjects, regard themselves "religious", which is possible as religion means different things to different people. And this is scientifically possible and ubiquitous as religion is a tool for humans for fasioning various human phenotypes just as a ribosome is a tool for a genome for constructing various proteins.

 

I note an additional statement on the subject of religion/science :"However, none of the major religions agree or would ever agree with this theory of our origin or with its supplemental theory of the origin of religion. The current religions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and many other religions will never agree to this model because it would mean that their whole belief system is based on a lie to control the masses. This is where the current major religions and science are irreconcilable. A religion that accepted this model would be a radically different religion than what we normally think of when we say religion."

 

My reaction-comment:

 

A) Earth's human population, including all human phenotypes and all human education-socio levels, and including , yes, almost all "scientists" and all editors of printed and electronic scientific communications, are not yet rationally capable and certainly not yet emotionally/psychologically mature (must display and voice RESPECT to Spiritual/Religious/Holy matters) to understand and accept that ALL aspects of human cultures and civilizations are just other manifestations of, parallel to, intra- and inter-cell biological factors, evolved by humans for their survival-replication.

 

B) My attitude is that religions are NOT "based on a lie to control the masses", but that historically their evolutions were possible and enabled based on blind faith. I would love to see each and every aspect of "holliness" completely deleted from religions, while leaving the element of faith based on "rational moral conviction" and offering the most efficient/effective set of values/behaviour, combined with the group's traditions (phenotype), for fair/secure preservation/proliferation. My reasoning and feelings are that some form of deep conviction, even if it be "pseudoreligion", is required and "justified" for rationally and emotionally urging and convincing all humans to live in a fair cooperative mode...

 

Dov

[InfiniteNow]

Science and "Spirituality"

...

 

I do not understand what "spiritual" means, unless it is meant to be vague in order to circumvent "religious".

I found myself flummoxed by this as well.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/5570-spiritual-vs-religious.html

 

 

By the way, Zythryn, nice set of posts. :shrug:

[Turtle]

actually it was the catholic church who persecuted countless individuals for saying that the world was not flat. Didn't Galileo claim that the earth was round?

 

The Catholics, yes...religion is religion is religion. Galileo's crime was not saying Earth is a sphere, but saying that Earth revolves around a stationary Sun.

 

With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

 

Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical".

He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.

His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial and not enforced, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

[InfiniteNow]

Galileo's crime was not saying Earth is a sphere, but saying that Earth revolves around a stationary Sun.

Considering it was my boy, Nic who really began to support this heretical claim...

 

 

In 1514 he made his Commentariolus (Little Commentary) — a short handwritten text describing his ideas about the heliocentric hypothesis — available to friends. Thereafter he continued gathering data for a more detailed work.

 

...Why was it that Galileo was the object of the church's torment? Is it something silly like Copernicus' book wasn't really published until a few weeks prior to his death?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

 

 

 

Interestingly, there's a lot to the notion that a heliocentric view was actually espoused much much earlier in ancient India. This reinforces my idea that the internet (i.e. the sharing of information freely) is good in the way of making regional boundaries both restrictive and unnecessary.

[Dov Henis]

I found myself flummoxed by this as well.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/5570-spiritual-vs-religious.html

 

 

A somewhat modified post of mine elsewhere some time ago:

 

 

A religious person

 

- feels desperately lost without an ID (Inteligent Design) or

without "everything being shaped by...something",

 

- needs to subsist under some form of Providence,

 

- her/his peace of mind and reflective elation are founded on a feeling that

human existence is purposed towards something vague of which it will

somehow sometime become a part.

 

 

A just spiritual person

 

- peace of mind and reflective elation founded on a feeling that human

existence is purposed towards something vague of which it will somehow

sometime become a part.

 

 

A science-informed humanist

 

- regards our cosmic circumstances, all reality, and our meagre

comprehension of them as an invitation to ever continue exploring and

charting the infinite aspects of the evolving universe, and to fashion

ourselves in accordance with what we progressively learn about the

universe and about the nature of life and about ourselves.

 

I think,

 

Dov

[Tormod]

Until 1492 everyone thought the earth was flat, but 1500 BC, the Bible, and it's adherents, described the earth as round.

 

1500 BC? Hardly. At 1500 BC there was no Bible, although perhaps the very earliest writings may have been done by then.

 

We have discussed the Flat Earth myth several times here at Hypography and it is definitely a myth.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

 

I find the idea that religion evolved as a social necessity to be weak at best or severly underdeveloped/flawed. Perhaps you could take this further in this thread.

 

My guess is that you think so because you are not aware of the research in the field.

 

Here is a review of a book about religion as a result of evolution:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/05/RVGE9GTMIE1.DTL&type=books

[cwes99_03]

I personally will not refuse any scientific discovery that contradicts my beliefs. I see each new discovery as a working miracle, since science does provide the "miracles" of today! I personally think that it is impossible for science to "contradict" religion. I believe that they coexist. Does scientific discoveries contradict parts of the bible? Yes! But it does not contradict the message that the bible is trying to teach us.

 

Wow in a mere 24 hours a lot of activity on this thread. Good to see.

 

1) Turtle, I still assert you are the one who spoke of fluff. There were several of us (including C1ay who realized that the subject needed further information by posting a link to the abstract) who did not have the same understanding of the article you refer to, and at least I did not make a misstep in my postings, only in my initial understanding. Everything that I posted was scientifically accurate, if you care to reread the entire thread.

 

2) I agreed with learnin's quote above up to a certain point. Perhaps this is what you object to. I agree that "I personally will not refuse any scientific discovery that contradicts my beliefs." I strongly disagree with "I personally think that it is impossible for science to "contradict" religion" and with "Does scientific discoveries contradict parts of the bible? Yes!"

Yes, science may be used to contradict religion, in that it may be used to contradict many religious beliefs held (such as Jesus is equated with God in the NT, which scientific examination of the texts proves that the belief is contrary to the scriptures).

Have scientific discoveries contradicted parts of the Bible? I have never yet seen one proven, and this is not to say that I haven't studied several such contradictions and come back to a conclusion that there either is no contradiction, or the supposed contradiction is in fact the flawed part (evolution). I have time and time again demonstrated how the Bible has been accurate (either in complete agreement with science, or in the face of "scientific" theory.) Time and time again I have made claims on this site and on others which cause many members to reexamine their supposed contradictions.

Thus I am of the position that it is not I who am unscientific, but those who stoop to saying, he is a Christian and is therefore 1) unreasonable and 2) incapable of scientific thought or explanation.