Intelligent design and creationism

[Viper]

No, name is the only real connection and even that was just given due to the story of Gensis.

Simply to say that there were two original humans doesn't confirm Genesis because evolution could also support that notion because at least two of the opposite sex had to evolve within the same time frame to continue that new evolutionary line.

Back to ID real quick. I want to hear the ID explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs.

[P-Land]

Could the existence of an "Eve" support the Biblical account of two original humans though?

[P-Land]

No, name is the only real connection and even that was just given due to the story of Gensis. 

Simply to say that there were two original humans doesn't confirm Genesis because evolution could also support that notion because at least two of the opposite sex had to evolve within the same time frame to continue that new evolutionary line.

Back to ID real quick.  I want to hear the ID explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Viper, you are quite right. However, if someone wanted to use the existence of "Eve" to further their religious belliefs within a scientific framework, I don't think they would be out of line by claiming the "scientific" Eve was representative of the "religious" Eve.

And just so that we don't misunderstad one another -- I agree with evolutionary theory, and with most of what monsoon has been saying. Eve falls into evolutionary theory, although at the most recent stage. People didn't migrate out of Africa until they were true humans. Of those that survived, all were related to some extent to one female, and thus all modern day humans are as well. Did you read into any of the links I posted above (I hope they worked). Anyhow, I know what I am saying sounds like I might disagree with you, but I think fundamentally we agree.

[Viper]

Yeah, I read the links. I've read two of them previously before.

My point is that Genesis says there is no others before Eve where as science just says Eve is the far back as we can trace one line. There were human females before science Eve, not Genesis Eve, thus in scientific terms Eve was not of the original two humans as she was in Gensis.

[P-Land]

Yeah, I read the links.  I've read two of them previously before.

My point is that Genesis says there is no others before Eve where as science just says Eve is the far back as we can trace one line.  There were human females before science Eve, not Genesis Eve, thus in scientific terms Eve was not of the original two humans as she was in Gensis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your distinction between biblical and scientific "Eve" is correct. And as concerns the female humans that existed before scientific Eve, none of them have passed on their DNA to every human alive. Everybody alive today shares some of the scientific Eve's genetic information, thus we are all related to, and stem from, her. I know there were others before her, but none as genetically successful as to say they are the mother of humankind as we know it today. Only she can make that claim.

[Viper]

Biblically speaking, Eve isn't alone in that distinction. Naamah also shares that trait as having been the mother to the world. <- Noah's wife.

[P-Land]

Biblically speaking, Eve isn't alone in that distinction.  Naamah also shares that trait as having been the mother to the world.  <- Noah's wife.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know much about the bible. But scientifically, "Eve" is all of our Great, Great ___________..........Grandmother. That's why they chose to call her Eve...she was the first woman. The other women that were alive with her and before her didn't pass on their genes, so we don't know to what extent they were "human" as we are today, or how much their DNA might have influenced the development of humankind over the past 150,000 years. That's all I have left in me to say for now.

[monsoon]

Your distinction between biblical and scientific "Eve" is correct.  And as concerns the female humans that existed before scientific Eve, none of them have passed on their DNA to every human alive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course they did pass on their genes. Else where did scientific Eve get hers from?

[RiversideGator]

No, name is the only real connection and even that was just given due to the story of Gensis.

I wasnt refering to the name, but to the genetic reality that we are all apparently descended from one woman.

[P-Land]

Of course they did pass on their genes.  Else where did scientific Eve get hers from?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know, I thought about that same question, and it is confusing to me. However, from watching the series on the Discovery Channel, I came away with the impression that "Eve" was the only one to pass on all of her DNA to us all, not Eve's mother or grandmother etc. So maybe they consider Eve the first "true" homo sapien sapien. I don't know when homo sapien sapiens emerged as a classification of human, but maybe it was with Eve. you make a valid point, but I am simply going by what I heard on the documentary, which I saw a while ago. Maybe I'll have to watch it again more closely. But I'm almost certain that that's what their point was (only Eve passed hers on). Has anyone else actually seen the documentary?

[P-Land]

I wasnt refering to the name, but to the genetic reality that we are all apparently descended from one woman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I can see, you are right about that fact. Scientists took genetic samples from people all over the world and found similarities matching closely enough to confirm all of their relation to "Eve". Scientists, not priests.

[P-Land]

An aside -- Riversidegator: Just out of curiosity, at what institution did you earn your J.D.?

[Viper]

Homo Sapiens Sapiens - 25,000 years ago

Homo Sapiens - 500,000 years ago

Homo Erectus - 1.5 million years ago

Homo Habilis - 2 million years ago

Australopithecus - 3 million years ago

"Eve" was a Homo Sapien. Her blood line would still trace back to Australopithecus, such as Lucy. Eve is simply as far back as they can currently trace it. With 30,000 different genes that can be combined together, it wasn't possible to analyze them all so a sample was taken instead. This sampling was used to form a kind of biological clock based on assumed scheduled mutation patterns. Of the sampled genes, it leads back to 150,000 years ago when they were all in one individual. had they been able to sample all 30,000 genes in all their billions of combinations, the time line would go much further back to the true original carrier of those genes.

[krazeeboi]

Carl Sagan spoke in philosophical terms, not scientific.  His statement, was not one of scientific publication with requests for peer review.  Pardon me for not being more clear on my post regarding the platform and medium by which a scientist would divuldge his theories in scientific context.

I thoroughly understand that Sagan spoke in philosophical terms, which is exactly my point. No, the statement was not one subject to scientific scrutiny as if he were publishing an article in the journal Science, yet it was the preface to a movie that is supposedly very much scientific. Just goes to show that science indeed has a foundational philosphical aspect to it that is not subject to the/a scientific method.

Not all theories are created to explain all aspects, just certain particulars.  Darwin's evolution theory did not attempt to explain how matter came to be.  In fact, nothing about it excludes the possibility of ID so how exactly is it so closed ended?

Well, firstly I would say, as you know, that Darwin's contribution wasn't evolution itself, but natural selection, which is serves as a mechanism for evolution. I do not believe that the theory, in itself, shuts the door to I.D. However, as presented in the classroom, not only is the view seen as unscientific, but it is often presented as one that is untenable BECAUSE science cannot empirically validate the ID claim.

In fact, I've noted a few times that science evolves.  It's fully open ended.  It also shows its faults and fallacies constantly by revising theories.  It never proclaims to be  absolute.

Perhaps not science itself, but oftentimes that is the portrait that many scientists attempt to point. The fact of the matter is that science isn't everything and it has limitations.

Knowledge requires input from one of the 5 senses.  Science is the result of input by the 5 senses.  Anything beyond the 5 senses is speculation.  Deep thinking is good but it is still assumptions.  Beliefs without evidence to that.  Does that make it wrong?  Absolutely not.  However, it does lend itself to being less accurate which as I mentioned is the premise of the two two goals of science...accurate description and accurate explaination.

Now HERE is where we get to the nitty-gritty of our discussion. This statement of yours obviously shows that you are a naturalist (no big surprise there). The only things that exist are those that we can experience through our five senses. This is evident because you said "knowledge" and not "sensual" or "empirical" knowledge. However, I am of the belief that there are things that we can most definitely "KNOW" apart from smelling, seeing, touching, tasting, or hearing something. As a matter of fact, if you TRULY believed what you are saying, then there would be no need to convince me to adopt your position. Why do I say that? Because you are attempting to persuade me by way of presenting (which indicates a choice, something devastating to a purely naturalistic/physicalist point of view) concepts that I should consider as an alternative to my own. What is a concept? Can you touch it, taste it, see it, hear it, feel it? Can you weigh it? Can you capture it in a test tube or a beaker? What about a number? What about an idea? What about morality?

This is only for starters.

A test:

My car is red.  For you to know that as absolute fact would require you to see it in person or by an authentic visual representation with the car title and my ID as well.  You could say that I just told you but then you are assuming I'm telling you the truth with no evidence to back it either way.  Any other forms of knowledge gathering cannot yeild absolute fact.

How can I TRULY, 100% know for a fact, beyond a shadow of a fact, that Viper in Florida (I think that's where you're located, LOL) drives a red car? If I see a red car in person parked in the driveway of a house that you say is yours, what does that actually prove? And your ID--how do I know it's not fake? So I take it to someone who specializes in fake ID's and he tells me it's not fake. How do I know he's not lying? I take a class that tells me how to spot fake ID's. How do I know I'm receiving accurate information? How do I know that the ID isn't simply of someone who resembles you very closely but really isn't you? How do I know you just didn't simply make a very good forgery of a car title? We call the dealership where you bought the car from--how do I know the owner of the dealership isn't lying when he tells me that the title deed really is yours? At some point in the equation, we have to actually employ trust--a non-physical concept, by the way, not subject to any of our five senses.

Science is not a being and therefore does not present itself in any manner at all other than that of being the most succesful data gathering method ever devised.  Again, this obviously means it's not the only method nort the only correct method, just the most accurate method.

Science in only represented in scientists who actually "do science." There must be an actual agent to collect and present data, and even then it must be interpreted. Also, how is it possible for there to be another "correct" method, yet less accurate?

Presumptions can be made, either scientifically, philosophically or other, based on non-testable data, but they are all still just that...presumptions.  Which one is more accurate, if all data is untestable, neither is.  If one element can be tested and it leads to the scientific or the philosophic theory, then that theory has more plausibility than the other and to me, that is what matters most.  Plausibility.  With little testable data, science is a way to define the most plausible possibility.  This plausibility doesn't mean other means and methods of gathering data and theorizing differently will yeild incorrect results, just if it's less plausible, not impossible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because you limit plausibility to empirical plausibility. I know there is no such thing as a square circle, and I do not know this empirically (which would be a contradiction in my claim); I know this through pure reason. So does it stand to reason that I should hold open the possibility of a square circle existing since science has not yet produced one?

My point is that even science rests on philosophical notions, in that at the most fundamental level, it assumes some things are true and other things are not (a priori knowledge). Since this is the case, why is it less plausible to believe something strictly from a philosophical sense when there would actually be no such thing as science without it? Can you scientifically prove that 2 + 2 = 4? No, you can demonstrate this, but not prove it. This is because the tokens, the mathematical representations of "2" and "4" are known. A scientific method cannot prove that "2" is "2"; it just is.

Science isn't everything. It has limits. It is not the only way to feasible explain phenomena.

[Viper]

Science isn't everything. It has limits. It is not the only way to feasible explain phenomena.

I was hoping you'd note that I agree to this much. Basically, my post comes down to science simply being more accurate.

Also, how is it possible for there to be another "correct" method, yet less accurate?

'Correct' is not always a matter of 100% accuracy, but as in one of the following 3 definitions.

# adjective: socially right or accepted

# adjective: in accord with accepted standards of usage or procedure

# adjective: correct in opinion or judgment

As I stated, science is simply the more accurate method.

Philosophy told us many things about the Earth, the cosmos and the human body from some of the greatest minds to ever have lived yet science has clearly falsified many of them. To give credit, there are many aspects of life that science cannot explain but philosphy can...love for instance.

PS: I also study philosphy so the concepts of intangibles is not lost upon me. I simply see science as a way to validate or invalidate philosphical ideas. Those that cannot be analyzed, studied, or given proper theory to are not of scientific nature and they remain just philosphic. Your math example is very much indeed a scientific notion. Can it be proven in the physical sense, no. But it can be quantified, analysed and broken down geometric law after geometric law to give foundation to the theory.

[krazeeboi]

I was hoping you'd note that I agree to this much.  Basically, my post comes down to science simply being more accurate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that this statement is what it ultimately boils down to. Science only deals with the natural realm. If you only see dealing with things that we can empirically validate as being "more accurate," then that's your opinion, and you're rightfully entitled to that. I respectfully disagree. Just because some philosophic notions have been disproved doesn't make philosophy any less of an "accurate" way to explain or describe phenomena in our world, just as some notions that pass as "scientific" (i.e., Carl Sagan's statement) that are disproved philosophically and with reason doesn't negate the critical role that science plays in our world.

While one may be able to use geometric law to somehow "prove" that 2 + 2 = 4, he/she will get to a point at which there is no further going back. At that point, there is something that is just clearly logical and teneble that we appeal to, which is a demonstration of a priori knowledge at work--a knowledge which does not demand empirical validation in order to be known as being absolutely true.

[Snowguy716]

My local school district just recently passed new science standards for grades k-12. The topic of "creationism" came up. This is what the state of Minnesota said to our district:

"Board member John Pugleasa said the people he met with during the listening session had a

[sonfire]

As a Christian high school student, I can say that my education as far as evolution goes is.... lacking. I think open discussion in the classroom would be great to have- allow students to form their own opinions and discuss the religious implications of evolution. But, come on... it's public school, and most high schoolers don't give a damn.

[monsoon]

I am amused at the irony of someone who identifies himself as a Christian high school student, turning around and using the word "damn" to describe the actions of his peers.

In any case, students in school should not be discussing "their religion" as part of a tax paid school curriculium. They can learn about the science of evolution and then if they choose can go discuss it in whatever religious institution that floats their boat. Because the Christian bible literally states that a god created everything in just 7 days there is no science to intelligent design or creationism as there is nothing scientific about that. You either accept it or not, and attempts to call this a science are nothing more than religious zeliots wishing to push their views on everyone via the school system.

It's very disturbing that here in the United States a significant portion of the population is decending into the grips of religious extremism and in the process becoming almost child like in their behavior. The complete dismissal of modern science is a really bad side affect of this and one of the reasons that much of the world is moving beyond the USA.

[SouthParkRocks]

There you go again attacking someone for their religious beliefs. Didn't you just get banned for attacking someone? Evolution is a theory and thats it.

Gravity is "just" a theory and thats it as well.

People just don't get that a theory is one of sciences highest proofs. It means questions have been asked -hypothosis have been put in place -and have been tested with results that are repeatable. Science never has pretended to answer all the questions, it will always be evolving because there are always things to learn. Science is about questions being asked- which is the antithesis of religion.

[hood]

It's very disturbing that here in the United States a significant portion of the population is decending into the grips of religious extremism and in the process becoming almost child like in their behavior. The complete dismissal of modern science is a really bad side affect of this and one of the reasons that much of the world is moving beyond the USA.

I really think it's a smaller group that are like than what it seems. They are just extremely vocal right now because we're in a time of change, moving further and further away from religion and toward science. I can see religions role in society, at least in America decreasing significantly within my lifetime, we may even reach a point in the next couple generations where a majority of people in this country are not religous.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

I really think it's a smaller group that are like than what it seems. They are just extremely vocal right now because we're in a time of change, moving further and further away from religion and toward science. I can see religions role in society, at least in America decreasing significantly within my lifetime, we may even reach a point in the next couple generations where a majority of people in this country are not religous.

According to a 2006 Gallup poll 46% of Americans believe creationism with no possibility for evolution.

[MJLO]

MJLO is a creationist. For him it's a logic thing.

He also likes to post in third person.

[dimebag1980]

There are also those (myself included) who believe in both to an extent. I believe we were created by a higher power, but what, I don't know. But I don't necessarily believe we were created the way we appear now. I believe we were created as some type of a primitive being and have evolved from there. As well I feel we continue to evolve on a daily basis... well, some of we do anyway.

[cheeriokid61]

I believe in God, and I believe he created humans. Yes, I'm sure humans have changed a little bit due to natural selection, but I don't think every species of animal evolved from one species.