Politics Dark matter and politics

The issue I take with creationists is that they want to foist their beliefs onto the same playing field as evolution. They say that "creation science" and "intelligent design" is a model that competes with evolution as an explanation of the way things are. In other words, evolution is false because of Creation and intelligent design.

This is bothersome because evolution has not been falsified. Evolution is a fact. This is bothersome because intelligent design is pseudoscience and Creation is nothing more than a myth.

"Some claim that evolution is just a theory, as if it were merely an opinion. The theory of evolution — like the theory of gravity — is a scientific fact. Evolution really happened. Accepting our kinship with all life on Earth is not only solid science. In my view, it’s also a soaring spiritual experience."​

—Neil deGrasse Tyson, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey​

To compare creationism to evolution is to compare a religious idea to a set of facts. You can't hold creationists to the same standards that evolutionists are held to. It would be impossible. Creationism has no empirical evidence and offers no testable hypotheses. That alone should tell you that there is no actual debate between the two.

 

There's no need to go into it. Generally, it seems that the problems come from those who reject evolution outright and suggest that creationism is valid. This is a dangerous and harmful view to apply to the education system and public policy. That's the bottom line.

I don't know if you can reason with anyone who takes that view. They're certainly entitled to that view. They're certainly allowed to voice it. But they should be critiqued and opposed if they try to apply such views where they don't belong.

If you study evolutionary science enough, you'll see that it actually does quite a good job of explaining life and diversity on the planet. These are, however, very difficult concepts to conceive, in large part because the concept of "deep time" is nothing short of sublime. It towers over our short human lives. I've briefly studied evolutionary science, and it still boggles my mind.

This is not to say that evolutionary science is complete. The amount that we know is incredibly insignificant compared to what we don't know. We have some idea of the magnitude of the information and potential knowledge that's out there, but even then we don't really know how vast it is. I'm sure many of the scientists who work in evolutionary science (or other related sciences such as geology and even astrophysics) are truly humbled by this. However, I'm also sure that this is what keeps them curious.

Curiosity is a good thing.

 

Wow, seriously? The theory of evolution isn't as simple as grade one math, but even grade one students need to see two and two added together before they believe that it equals four.

I don't know how microwaves work, but I don't have to believe in microwave technology to cook a Hot Pocket. If I push the right buttons, it's going to get nice and hot.

I still don't quite understand how airplanes stay in the air, but my lack of faith is not going to make them fall out of the sky.

etc.

But evolutionary science is based on the same principles as grade one math. For example: It is demonstrated (repeatedly and consistently) and so it is true.

The mechanisms as described under the theory of evolution have been proven. They have been observed, tested, experimented with, etc., to the extent that evolution has been accepted as a scientific fact. It is as real as gravity; it's just harder to observe. It might be hard to believe, but so is the devastation wrought by nuclear weapons. Not believing in it doesn't mean it's never existed. No longer believing in it won't make it go away. It is the way of the universe.

I imagine you cannot fathom the gravitational impacts of Jupiter in practical terms. (I can't.) That doesn't mean the theory of gravity—i.e., the explanation as to why objects attract each other—"is problematic." It means that you're having a difficult time realizing its impact.

Why are you asking these questions?

Do you know how genetics works?

Do you know the net impact of natural selection? Do you know the positive effects? The negative effects?

Do you think humans have never evolved? Do you think we will not evolve in the future?

What does my willingness to act in certain ways have to do with evolution?

Why are you asking about my view on "perfecting" the human race?

These are serious questions, and I'd like you to answer them. Sorry to respond to your questions with my own questions, but your questions make me wonder about your views. I need to know where you are coming from so that we can be on the same page. Otherwise, I'd just be humouring you without actually indicating much about my own views.

 

You need to understand the difference between the fact that evolution exists and the fact that we don't know many of the whys and hows. This is the issue with any scientific theory. We understand some things, we don't understand a lot of things. Regardless, evolution is a fact. You can't disprove facts. Facts by definition are things that actually occur. Evolution occurs. It's been proven. You cannot debate the existence of evolution, only certain aspects of what we do with these facts and the questions that come with them.

If you're curious enough, you can observe the evolution of fruit flies in a relatively short period.

If you're not that dedicated, perhaps just read this: Examples of evolution happening right now - Business Insider

These questions are answerable, but I don't have the time or the space to answer them here. If you deny human activity has an impact on climate change, nothing I post on TFP this afternoon with change your mind.

Are you familiar with the greenhouse effect? Do you know the impact of deforestation and burning fossil fuels on the greenhouse effect?

Shall I assume one or more of the following?

1) You do not believe in the greenhouse effect.
2) You do not believe the greenhouse effect can change.
3) You do not believe that changes in the greenhouse effect can warm the planet to a measurable degree.
4) You do not believe that changes in the greenhouse effect can warm the planet to a degree that has negative consequences to health and well-being.
5) You do not believe that deforestation has an impact (or significant impact) on the greenhouse effect.
6) You do not believe that burning fossil fuels has an impact (or significant impact) on the greenhouse effect.
7) You do not believe that humans cause deforestation.
8) You do not believe that humans burn fossil fuels.

I'm not afraid to answer questions when the questions make sense.

We appeared on the planet as fully formed humans? God did it, right? We just plopped down right beside the Neanderthals. (Or did we come first according to your view?)

Look, I haven't really said anything about the origin of human beings. All I'm trying to do is explain to you that evolution is a thing. Like, a true thing.

Um, that's kind of where we are now. Do you know of many other species on earth nearly as superior in intelligence and generalism (capable of great environmental fitness)?

Genetic engineering is possible because of evolution, but I do believe that there are moral considerations when using it.

There are good things that can come out of genetic engineering and selective breeding.

Take my dog, for example. The Havanese is hilarious. I consider him one of my best friends. He wouldn't have been possible (okay, more accurately, likely) if it weren't for the mechanisms described under the theory of evolution.

Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What facts are included in your religious view? The biblical record?

I don't have blind faith about human evolution. I have education. The big problem between us is that I have the advantage of being educated in a topic you are relatively ignorant about. I wouldn't claim to know much about Christianity (or monotheism in general), and I know I could leave that to you.

If you want to have a real conversation about evolutionary science, I could recommend a few popular books aimed at a general readership. They're actually quite entertaining.

 

@Aceventura

I obviously read what you write. (Though I probably shouldn't.) I ask questions because I don't want to assume. Your positions on this topic lack cogency. You point out that you don't want me to assume and that I should ask questions (which is mostly what I've done with you lately), but then you say I ask the wrong question.

It's not a question of whether humans can "create a global greenhouse." The greenhouse effect is natural phenomenon of earth. That's how earth is. How the greenhouse effect changes, and what has an impact on these changes, is what's in question.

Between that and your concern about the "dangerous idea that humans could evolve into something other than what we are" demonstrates to me quite clearly that you a) lack a basic understanding of the science regarding evolution and global warming, and b) are distracted by misunderstandings of each to the extent that you assume that people who "support" evolution and global warming believe certain things that they actually don't.

I'm not going to waste any time describing to you what the greenhouse effect actually is and how it actually works. I'm not going to explain to you the implications of evolution on anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) in relation to, say, Neanderthals and Homo erectus.

I don't expect everyone to have a basic understanding of the science behind human evolution, nor do I expect everyone to believe it to be true. However, we cannot have a conversation about it on a certain level (i.e., beyond religious views of evolution) without rather quickly hitting a brick wall.

Maybe we should scale back a bit to the intent of this thread. I will reiterate a bit and maybe just generally state what I think: I think it's dangerous to have people in power (policymakers) who undermine, disregard, or otherwise attack what is broadly accepted as fact.

Evolution is a fact. It should be taught in public schools. To not teach evolution at even a basic level in grade school is not only anti-scientific; it's a travesty of education. Furthermore, teaching creationism alongside evolution as an alternative view or model is also anti-scientific and a travesty of education. Teaching a religious concept as an alternative to a scientific theory is ridiculous and would only serve to confuse and undermine the facts-based teaching. It would be like teaching alchemy as an alternative view to the basic concepts of chemistry. It would be like teaching the geocentric model of the universe as an alternative to what we now know about our solar system and beyond.

Human-influenced global warming is a fact. We should be addressing it on all levels of government. It's not a question of whether humans are contributing to the trend of warming; it's a matter of realizing that it's quite possible human activity is the greatest contributor to the trend. Denying human-influenced global warming only acts as a distraction, a barrier, to doing something about it before it has devastating consequences.

You likely disagree. That's fine. I see my views as relatively uncontroversial outside of a fundamentalist religious context.

 

I'm just going to zero in on this because it's very telling.

The hypotheses arising out of social Darwinism have not held up to the rigours of the scientific method. The fact that you have the gall (or the ignorance) to bring this up amongst the other dross as some kind of criticism of theories whose hypotheses have held up tells me that I should stop discussing this topic with you completely.

 

You mean the theory that "blacks are inferior and are more closely related to apes than whites are"? [Humans are apes (Hominidae), by the way, but I know what you mean.] I haven't seen any resources pointing this out as an accepted scientific theory. Have you?

There is debate as to how close social Darwinism relates to Darwin's work directly. Is that what you want to explore? I don't know where you're going with this. Are you trying to disprove human evolution by pointing out the same concepts explored by Nazis and imperial Britain? You can't disprove facts.

You can address both if you want. But what is your point? Should we ignore or hide away the science behind human evolution because of what the Nazis and imperial Britain did?

I've merely stated facts and that we should acknowledge facts both in terms of education and environmental policy. If facts are troubling to you, then perhaps you should do some soul-searching.

My view on evolution (as it pertains here anyway) is merely that we should teach it. What's so troubling about teaching people biological facts?

We're obviously not on the same page here. What gall do I have about insisting on acknowledging facts? What's ignorant about wanting to acknowledge facts?

 

This is hilarious until you realize that three-quarters of Germany's electricity is generated by renewable sources. (Renewable sources in the U.S. produce less than 15% of electricity.)

Poll: Only Germans Think They Are Helping to Fix Global Warming

Also I found this interesting. (Not so much hilarious.)

Evolution Education in Muslim States: Iran and Saudi Arabia Compared | Elise Burton - Academia.edu