Today is the 150th anniversary of the publication On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Hurrah!
Before that Glorious Day, people were entrapped in the Darkness of Superstition, believing that gods designed all the life on earth. But then came the Most Sacred Scientist Darwin, and his Light of Truth beamed upon the dark world, and superstition fled, never to return! People were Unshackled from their Mental Slavery, and rejoiced much as religion died out forever. Then peace and happiness reigned forevermore…
Yeah, right.
Here’s my question.
How has believing in evolution affected your life?
For me, it was instrumental in getting me out of Christianity and accepting there probably wasn’t a god. It helped make sense of the world around me in a way the Bible couldn’t. It explained death and suffering so simply and masterfully — there was no need for Adam & Eve and the whole fruit story. It also let me appreciate nature in a way I never could before. Instead of playing theological gymnastics to make everything fit into my worldview, I was able to consider things without the forcing them into my holy book interpretation.
On the negative side, it did cost me some friendships and put me in a pretty awkward place with my job at a religious organization, which I eventually quit since it required employees to adhere to their beliefs.
Also, if it wasn’t for me accepting evolution, I would have never started this blog and met all the cool folks I’ve come to know through it.
How about you?
John M: I think the biggest issue we are seeing is that this kind of money is available to pastors in the first... 
Siberia: I kind of don’t give a rat’s ass about propagating my genes. I’d much rather have this particular iteration of my... 
Ty: If that was a possible benefit of being above the line, then yes. I’m extraordinarily capable of success when I... 
K: Couldn’t agree more – especially as I’ve studied the Bible on the role of women and... 
Erp: Interesting. Many years ago I helped my aunt sort out some of her late mother-in-law’s... 
Peter Cross: The Age of Reason is sometimes published and sold without Part 3: Examination of the... 
276 Comments
For me, it came part and parcel to my work in molecular biology/neuroscience. Some of the newest and coolest medicines are now being developed because of evolutionary principles. I found the work intellectually stimulating and even exciting.
On a personal level, it made me question my religious beliefs, but I did not actually shed them until I did work in philosophy.
ooooh!!! ooooh! I’m super excited because the guy I worked for at Columbia, Eric Kandel, is on TV (on Charlie Rose)!!!!! That is sooooo cool. (and yes I am a total geek!)
If y’all are interested, apparently Eric is doing a bunch of shows with Charlie Rose called the Brain Series:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/collection/10702
I am such a total geeky dork, but I love this stuff!!!!!!!!!!!
ok– last post about this I promise, but the first episode of the Brain Series has John Searle in it!!! I’m in heaven!!!!
Did you like Columbia? I’m applying and don’t think I’ll get in, but I was curious what your opinion of it is.
Columbia is a GREAT school, but I didn’t like living in NYC so much… it might be because 9/11 happened the first year I was there. It sucked.
Fair. I met a student who transferred out because she really hated it; apparently it felt a little elitist. I’m prepared to deal with that from colleges, though. I don’t expect much else from highly selective communities of people.
My experiences of staying with my g/f in Oxford were completely different. They were all an incredibly self-effacing bunch – obviously aware that they were intelligent folks, but very modest with it.
No elitism at Columbia as far as I can tell. They really tend to be a great bunch (of course there are jerks everywhere). It was “masses” in NYC that drove me nuts. They don’t seem to have a shred of civility to them. Their manners are atrocious and they are mean spirited. As a Southern girl, that just didn’t fly with me. As my Grandmother says, “It doesn’t cost 5 cents to be nice.” Big-city rude has permanently put me off from ever living in a city like NYC again.
Dan kudos for the strength it took for you to accept what is (to me) obvious despite the strong beliefs you held, so many deny facts and common sense for reasons that can only be backed by the phrase ‘just because’.
How has believing in evolution affected your life? For me it helped me to understand the questions that naturally occurred to me as I was raised in a home where there was some faith but it was not ingrained in us . We kind of evolved together as we asked questions and considered perspectives. I would like to thank my father for allowing me to be truly open-minded and allowing my mind to evolve naturally giving another reason to believe in evolution.
I, um.
How do I say this?
I mean…
It couldn’t have changed my life because it was never an issue. I learned it the same way I learned about gravity: as a fact of life. That people question it still baffles me; I grew up with books and magazines about animals in general and dinosaurs in special, about biology and myths (I always loved mythology and biology both) and it never, ever occurred to me to believe some sort of Goddidit over the actual science.
This describes my experience as well. I did not have a religious upbringing, and yet I’m aware of some of the stories in it, I was perhaps shielded almost my whole life from realizing there are people who take those stories literally. We learned about evolution in school as if it were true and did not have any dissenters or alternate “theories” proposed out of a sense of objective fairness, so although I presume the majority of people where I grew up were Christians, I also presume they believed in evolution and the creation story was a myth or fable relatively. Like, we’re going to teach you about some moral issue, in the form of a story – and there are lots of stories like that that aren’t in the bible. It seems to me they accepted that these might be stories told by god, but that they know it didn’t really happen. It may be that they believed in Creation as fact after all, but nobody let on.
In 7th grade, we also learned about the Iroquois Indians, because that is part of local cultural heritage. This was in Social Studies – I imagine we didn’t do more than scratch a superficial surface there, but within the topic, we learned about their houses, means of trade, etc., and their creation story. I don’t know what Iroquois Indians believe, that this is true, or if they acknowledge it is a tale to describe how things came to be how we see them now, quite metaphorically.
I guess we learned some very small bits of Roman and/or Greek mythology also, but rather in context to history, like Athens vs. Sparta, or the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. I really think we skimmed through all that too fast, I’m not sure how the gods fit into historical detail, or perhaps as a literature subject. It might have even been part of the science class, as every year, we went to the planetarium, and learned about the constellations and the stories that went with them – which has nothing to do with astronomy. We also learned some stuff to do with Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, but not very much. I took astronomy in college, and the very first thing the professor bellowed out is “Astronomeeee IS! NOT! Astrologeee,” as perhaps many signed up thinking we were going to study constellations, and not what it turned out to be, like, what the atmosphere on Saturn is and how we know that, or how to tell how far away a star is and how fast it’s moving.
I was a nominal christian when I entered university. I was the liberal believer son of liberal believer parents, and had some pretty non-dogmatic ideas about god, but I definitely believed he existed.
I was also, from as early as I knew how to read, a dinosaur kid. Even before I knew the mechanism behind it, I knew that animals had grown and changed and gone extinct and risen up from earlier forms.
Three years into my zoology degree, I took one of the best courses I’ve ever been lucky enough to register for; Vertebrate Paleozoology. We went over the nuts and bolts of major vertebrate evolutionary transitions, and I learned about the fish-to-tetrapod transition that Neil Shubin has just brought to spectacular light with Tiktaalik, and his book, Your Inner Fish. (For the record, Carl Zimmer has also written about this in At The Water’s Edge – one of the most compelling science books I’ve ever read.) We talked about punctuated equilibrium and genetic drift and allopatric speciation, and my eyes were opened. I’d begun to supplant my ad-hoc internal explanations of evolution with a real understanding of it for the first time, and it was breathtaking. These days, I watch old episodes of Cosmos, and hear Carl Sagan talk about the exhilaration of science, and I smile and nod, knowing that I’ve felt that same rush.
Also, in that course, I had my first real exposure to creationism. Not in any member of the class; these were high level zoology undergrads, and a couple grad students. In discussing some of the initial resistances to Darwin’s theories, our prof told us that there were -still- people who doubted the veracity of the biological explanation for the diversity of life. Still! In the 21st century! I’ll fully admit I was sheltered, but I had NO IDEA. No one in my church or even in my 12 grades of catholic schooling had ever voiced any objection to the obvious truth that life had evolved. It was a bizarre curiosity that stuck in the back of my mind like flat earthers and moan hoaxers.
Stunningly, I managed to continue my studies for years before really reading up on creationist opposition to evolution; why bother, given how disastrously wrong their ideas were? Surely it was on the way out. But little pieces kept getting back to me. School boards wanting to teach creationism as science. Crazy-ass ideas about vapor canopies and Flintstones-as-documentary paleontology. I started to read up on this vast cesspool of anti-science, and I was horrified.
Naturally, I beefed up on my scientific knowledge to counter specific creationist retardations in the various places I’d seen them around the net. TalkOrigins led me to PZ Myers. PZ led me to Ed Brayton. Youtube gave me clips of ignorant creationists arguing against Russell Glasser, Matt Dillahunty, and Jeff Dee from Austin’s The Atheist Experience. And, slowly but surely, I began to accept my weak, liberal christianity as part of the same miasma of unreason that fed creationism. To be honest with myself, to live in the real world, it all had to go. And when I despaired of my lost immortality, when I felt alone without the guardian spirits hanging around me, I remembered my friends and my family, and I remembered that giddy exultation at the simple joy of knowing reality. I remembered which of those feelings had been stronger all along.
Sorry for the super long post, guys. This is, I think, the first time I’ve really spelled out how I came out of christianity, and it just kind of -happened-. That’s what evolution gave to me; awe, joy, wonder, and the knowledge that I’m drawing all of it from something real.
Great post, Nick.
“These days, I watch old episodes of Cosmos, and hear Carl Sagan talk about the exhilaration of science, and I smile and nod, knowing that I’ve felt that same rush.”
In my post below I almost said something very much along these lines! The faithful love to celebrated their humility and proclaim that denying God is arrogant. I should know, I did it. I now know that there is nothing more humbling — and exhilarating — than reality.
Thanks for saying so, Joel. :) It’s always cheering to know that other people share this experience.
Bravo, Nick – it is exhilarating to look back at that journey to intellectual freedom, and I have done so here before. As a former Catholic, like you, creationism wasn’t an issue, and I LOVED paleontology. But when I came to a conservative town to work and marry, I realized I did not know why it was an issue and I didn’t know exactly what I thought – and that gap in my thinking disturbed me. I was a college graduate – yet this made me feel strangely ignorant. I started with The God Delusion and felt a thrill of freedom, and read on and on, Hitchens and Harris, and Stenger, and Erhman, read The Reason Driven Life and Godless. I remembered what it felt like to learn and that learning could free the soul. The world amazes and fulfills…welcome.
Me too! I remember reading magazines and books and all sort of material about dinosaurs when I was a kid – I LOVED that stuff. Still do, to be honest. I used to say I’d be a paleontologist when I grew up because I adored the very idea of studying animals and fossils. Still do, actually.
I know right? Neither did I. I came to know this through the Internet, when I started reading atheist blogs. Until then it was such a non-issue that I was shocked to see people actually doubted it – and for no good reason.
Me too…
Kudos for actually studying zoology; I didn’t but I hope I will be able to, someday.
“I was shocked to see people actually doubted it – and for no good reason.”
And even after you hear all their reasons, they still aren’t any good. :)
To be honest, the beginnings of understanding I got from studying evolution in school were made much more real and solid when I started to use them in debate with creationists on the internet. If that’s the kind of “argumentative evolution” you’ve been reading recently, chances are you’d do swimmingly when and if you do make up your mind to start your studies. I’m currently working as an editor, but I always toy with the idea of diving back into science. Molecular physiology was always my downfall, though.
If you’re interested in zoology, though, especially as it relates to evolution, you might try this book: http://www.amazon.com/Vertebrates-Comparative-Anatomy-Function-Evolution/dp/0073040584/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259094659&sr=8-1 I found it to be full-on enlightening. Seeing the similarities between every vertebrate, from sharks to cats, is one of the clearest cases for shared ancestry I’ve ever encountered.
It’s one of the textbooks I found most useful in my courses, but Kardong is an easy read, and I actually got more out of reading it in the position you and I are in now–lay observers with a passion for science–than I ever did as a student. Pricey as hell, since it’s a full-on textbook, but I bet you can find a cheaper price on an earlier edition. (Ha ha! Ebay delivers, before I even finished writing the comment. http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=kardong+vertebrates&_sacat=See-All-Categories )
Yeah, Goddidit just doesn’t quite cut it :p
I know what you mean about debating – I surely learned a lot about evolution by researching to refute the creationist arguments. That’s basically when I discovered the deeper level of biology, which only made me love it even more. It’s so interesting; sometimes it’s hard for me to understand why people aren’t as excited about it as I am…
Thanks for the book suggestion – I’ll check it out!
I appreciate and value your story, your journey. But one thing is painfully obvious. You haven’t “come out of Christianity, you’ve merely (and wisely) discarded religion (external rule keeping, hypocrisy, etc) which i your particular case was cloaked within Catholocism.
There is a vast (and liberating) difference between religion and Christ. This is what is so poorly understood in this excellent forum. In fact, Christ saved the harshest rebukes for the hypocritical peddlers of oppressive and burdensome religiosity.
The journey continues…
I don’t really see any distinction between believing in Jesus and any other superstition. For the record, I did firmly believe in Jesus’ divinity when I was a christian. As I mentioned, I was a very non-dogmatic catholic, meaning that I had my own very personal interpretation of scripture; my own “relationship” if you will. In fact, the only problem I had with the term “personal saviour” was that it felt arrogant; who was I to monopolize something so special and necessary?
I don’t mean to be confrontational, but I do take umbrage at the suggestion that I wasn’t an earnest believer in Jesus when, in truth, I was. I respect that you have your own interpretation of both the terms “religion” and “christianity”, but I think both are arguable, since they seem to lead you to a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Nick…I realize in this (limited) medium we are a bit challenged to communicate effectively, ie no voice inflection, we dont know one another, etc so meaning is lost in translation.
First, I sincerely do respect your journey (thus far) and in no way intend to belittle your experience whatsoever, am not mean spirited. It’s just that I’ve been on this journey myself now for a quarter century, and have (through much hardship and intense seeking) come to understand some of the dynamics behind the process, etc.
With all due respect, it has nothing to do with Christ’s “divinity” or not, that is a religious notion. When you understand that “for this purpose was the Son of God made manifest…that he might destroy the works of the enemy” (1 Jn 3.8). The problem is that we have no understanding of mankind’s plight or dilemma, what those “works” were that he came to set the captive free from since our only reference for mankind is man as we see him today in temporal time which is a far cry from his original construct having been “fashioned in the very image and likeness of God”.
If you care to follow up, I would be happy to oblige, otherwise I wish you all the very best on your (continuing) journey.
“And when I despaired of my lost immortality, when I felt alone without the guardian spirits hanging around me, I remembered my friends and my family, and I remembered that giddy exultation at the simple joy of knowing reality. I remembered which of those feelings had been stronger all along.”
I think this is understandable (and well written I might add) but I would caution you if you ever get into the thick of things with a bloody-minded and particularly intelligent theist with an agenda (not like I know any of those…) You’ve sort of abandoned the skeptic’s armor: empirical motivation for belief being the only valid or helpful one. I, not being a skeptic, think your story makes good sense, and I certainly won’t hassle you on it. But it wouldn’t surprise me if you got hit with “you made an emotional choice that feels good, and that’s all I’ve done.” Fair warning!
Mm, good point – I could certainly have been more clear with that part of the story. I didn’t mean to imply that jettisoning my faith for reason was an emotional decision; I was more trying to emphasize that I was emotionally at peace with decisions I’d come to rationally, based on long years of education and deconversion.
I suppose I feel comfortable enough with the community here on UF–whether believer or not–that I was more interested in discussing how I felt about the process, and what it meant to me personally, than offering up defenses for why I went through said process. There are plenty of other threads on this site for that. :)
Fair enough!
JonJon, EVERYONE is a skeptic to some degree, please think about that comment. If you were not skeptical about anything then it would make you, well be honest and in my opinion, gullible. I’m not saying that you are, but many would take it that way, fair warning back at cha.
hehe, yes, but being skeptical in day to day life and being a skeptic aren’t really the same thing. Skepticism as I understand it is the philosophy that either a) we can know nothing about the way reality is, or b) we can depend only on empirical evidence for knowing about how reality is (although philosophical empiricism also leads to the first kind; we are given only our own internal experiences, and so even observation about the world around us isn’t guaranteed.
Yeah, everyone should think critically about things, but that’s not the kind of skepticism I’m talking about.
I think a lot of non-scientific, religious people think that science is joyless. Nick has beautifully described something that a lot of scientists feel: the intense joy of learning. Theories can be beautiful and can make people happy. It doesn’t undermine the science behind them though.
The point is you can be a skeptic and still find immense joy in the things around you. It isn’t necessarily a trade off.
When I was a young evangelical entering a State University, I was ready. I’d been prepared by my Young Life meetings and church retreats to resist the secular lies and Christ-dissing that I’d be exposed to, including the Big Lie of evolution. Of course, when I got there, there wasn’t so much Christ-dissing as there was Christ-ignoring, and I was a humanities major so I didn’t even really learn about evolution.
I do clearly remember one day as a freshman, bouncing into the honors lounge and announcing that I’d just figured out that we couldn’t possibly be related to apes because we BUILD things and create ART and stuff. This senior girl looked over the top of her glasses and book at me with a look I’ll never forget, and explained that primates and even birds use tools to complete tasks like nest-building or grub-retreiving, and that I really should get in the habit of doing research before proudly proclaiming my beliefs. I was suitably chagrined, but still unconvinced, which is where I kind of stayed for a long time.
From my ex-timonial:
“Several years later, without meaning to really prove or change anything, but simply to satisfy a certain intellectual restlessness that had kicked in, I decided that I wasn’t doing a very good job of staying informed about my world and began three magazine subscriptions; Harper’s, the Atlantic, and Scientific American. While I still enjoy all three, it was SciAm that initially got me thinking, realizing that I was, really, still on the fence about evolution. (My ‘faith’ at this point was little more than an abstract notion of Universal Benevolence with Beautiful Mysterious Plan – I mean, hey; I’d been to Death’s Door and my life was pretty good, right?) I was still subliminally influenced by the pancake-earth argument, but a few months of solid cosmology articles triggered a cascade of theological questions, which I’m pretty sure, considering the audience here, I needn’t list. A little reading lead to more reading, which eventually led to Sam Harris, and that’s when the facade really collapsed.”
I’ve since dropped my SciAm subscription in favor of science blogs and books, but only because SciAm wasn’t keeping up with my curiosity!
Now evolution is one of my favorite subjects. I’m currently reading The Song of the Dodo; it’s fascinating. As Daniel notes, evolution explains the living world with parsimony and elegance. Understanding it has affected my life by making me both smarter and better at thinking, which are two different things. Understanding evolution has opened my eyes and mind and heart in unexpected and unprecedented ways, and unleashed a new “compassion for things I’ll never know,” as David Byrne says.
The reality of evolution is so much more awesome and satisfying than the stories I was raised to believe that, if I hadn’t been through it myself, I would be hard-pressed to understand why anyone would reject it.
I was raised a Mormon by my mother, and a skeptic by my father…at the same time.
I had to hide the book from my mother, if she found me reading it she would have been furious.
Reading the Origin of Species really did change the way I thought about God and the world, and It probably is one of the main reasons I realized that religion didn’t make sense.
I don’t believe in evolution. I don’t need to. I believe or don’t believe my neighbour when she says she didn’t make that dent in the back of my car, but with evolution, belief doesn’t come into it. The evidence I have seen and studied has lead me to conclude that evolution through natural selection.
And that’s the beauty of science. I don’t need to believe. I can work it out from first principles.
Argh, “evolution through natural selection *is a fact*.”
Damn not reading what I’m writing when I post things.
Exactly. I know what people mean when they say then “believe” in something such as evolution. Yet the word belief, from my perspective, carries negative connotations of acceptance of a statement with out evidence. A personal pet peeve I guess. :)
I tend to say that belief is best left to fat guys in red suits and bunny rabbits.
People can *not* believe in facts, right? So if people can not believe in facts, don’t some people believe in them? Seems like it’s just semantics.
I believe evolution is a fact. Some people don’t believe that.
One time someone asked me, incredulously, “you mean, you believe in evolution??!” I wanted to clearly negate the idea that it was in any way, shape or form a “belief” so I phrased my answer as, “I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory”. (The entire conversation died instantly at that point.) I’m not sure that’s the best way of putting it either, but I do try and avoid using the word “believe” in connection with evolution. No one ever says, “I believe the sky is blue”, do they?
The way I explain it to people is that beliefs are the larger category Both creationism and evolution are part of this larger category. However, evolution is also part of a smaller subcategory. Beliefs that are true and that I have a good reason for believing are true are a special type of belief that usually goes by another name: knowledge.
Both are beliefs. Only one is knowledge.
“I believe evolution is a fact. Some people don’t believe that.” You mean that some people don’t believe that you believe that evolution is a fact. What a cheek!
Semantics are fun :-)
I never believed anything else. It only made sense to me that we came from apes and evolved knowing the existence of cavemen. Having never really been a member of a church, it was no big deal. I loved science so it only makes sense.
To celebrate I am going to go grab a beer, grab my darwin anniversary english coin, and crack open the origin of species to start it for the first time. It works perfectly since I was trying to decide what to read and wanted to read it during the anniversary (found out this morning it was today and just finished Devil May Cry the new 007).
Happy monkey/evolution/Darwin anniversary to all!
Like Siberia, I never have been a believer. My Mom made me get up on Sundays, whenever she felt like it, to go to church. I knew it was one of those things we did because you’re supposed to.
I don’t really know what I thought when I was actually at church. I just did what I was supposed to do, waiting for it to get over. I don’t recall thinking This is all BS, but I know I wasn’t sitting there thinking about a higher power. I just sang when I was supposed to sing, prayed when I was supposed to pray, took Communion when I was supposed to (that fake bread was nasty!).
I’ve always been the type of person to get more involved with anything that I do. So, I ended up becoming an “alter boy”, or whatever they called it. I carried the candle thing around and lit/put out candles, while wearing a hideous robe. And I got to ring the bell outside, when it was almost time for church to start!!
Later I started to “run the music” – Hey, Mr. DJ! LMAO. The pastor had a big electronic keyboard that I was supposed to program songs into, then play at the correct time. I actually enjoyed this very much, because I got to sit up in the balcony, alone. I’ve always been a “techie”, too, so this was a fun job for me. I wish I would have figured out how to program some dirty rap music into it and played it during church. LOL
Anyway, this was all at an Episcopal church. I believe we eventually stopped going for some ridiculous reason. Maybe it was a disagreement with the Women’s Guild, or whatever it’s called, and my Mom. I do recall us leaving the Zion Lutheran church, because I joined the Boy Scouts and they “don’t believe” in belonging to any other “group”, including the Boy Scouts!?
Well, my wonderful Mother passed away when I was 14, a little over 14 years ago. We had her funeral at the same Episcopal church. I was obviously devastated by the loss of her (I think I still am, as I’ve never really “dealt” with it…but that’s a whole other can of worms. LOL), but at her funeral I didn’t think she was going to heaven or that her spirit would be living on. I knew all the Jesus stuff was just a ridiculous ritual, and all we were really doing was saying “Goodbye.”, and putting her casket into a cement vault underground. By the way, I’m still perplexed by why we bury dead people under the ground and then go visit the spot where their decaying body is buried. It all seems ridiculous (and morbid) to me, which is probably why I have very rarely visited anyone’s tombstone.
While I certainly don’t think that my Mother is watching over me (I’m sure she would have struck me with lightning a few times already, if she was LOL), there have been times when I have noticed something and thought of her. If I were a believer, I would probably think of them as signs that she is “with me”, but I know that is not the case.
Of the many reasons I wish she were still alive, one is that I would like to know if she truly believed, or if she was just doing what you’re supposed to do. I have a strong inclination to believe that she may have been a closeted atheist.
So….now that I have my my answer of “I have never believed”, into an 8-paragraph response, I think I will stop and go make some breakfast.
You all have a WONDERFUL day, and keep on doing what you’re doing!
Yay, another never-believer!
My experience was a little different, though; my mother’s always been a believer and quite serious about it – but her faith is strictly personal and not at all the stereotypical Christian; she believes in Jesus, but she’s told us more than once that she thinks other religions are different ways to see the same thing and that people worship the way it fits them/their culture best.
She was raised Catholic and hated being forced to go to church, so she never forced us to. She never even went herself until she was in her late 40s (she’s currently in her 60s). Again, she never forced us to go with her, though I usually did (I’m physically handicapped and she doesn’t like to leave me alone, so I’d go with her when my sister couldn’t stay with me – not because she made me, but because I’d rather go with her than make her miss something she liked so much).
Like you, I sang, I prayed, I even cried sometimes (ministers can be very passionate and sometimes the vibe just gets you) but I never really believed. Science was never an issue at our church (small denomination that it was) and my mom has always been OK with it. In fact, she believes God gave humans the intelligence to explore the universe, discover things, make science.
Which is good, otherwise I’d be dead by now.
Evolution does not effect my belief in a supernatural being. The fact that we are on our own makes me feel that life and our environment is more special and that we need to take care of one another for the sake of the planet and our future generations. Evolution is the established method of how and other life forms came to be. Evolution is supported by other areas of science which also allows me to envision how this planet developed both geologically and biologically. Taking that a step further thinking of how we are clinging to a planet swinging around the sun which in turns spins through a galaxy and so on makes me a little motion sick. Blue dot indeed. Evolution is such a tiny aspect of what life can be it saddens me that the overly religious want to dumb it down by adding superstitious beliefs into the picture. Small minds.
Evolution is extremely interesting to me and I love the discussing it and learning about it. Nature truly is amazing and it amazes me more ever day.
It also has always been 100% separate from my religious upbringing (blame my bad christian parents I guess…or praise them). Science is one thing. Religion is another. They never really crossed paths or conflicted.
The environment I grew up in consisted of semi-religious people who were mostly uneducated (high school equivalent) so their understanding of science (and even the bible) was very limited. Because of this, the 2 issues rarely if ever arose in the same conversation. I have always been “the smart one” at family events and I was encouraged to do well in school and pursue my scientific interests.
I was lucky to grow up in the bible belt and never encounter the Science vs. Religion battle. Now that I am an adult, the idea that parents discourage scientific learning in their children sickens me. I promise to remove my children from class during the “intelligent design” and “creationism” portions of their class until…
1. Those portions are removed
2. Flying Spaghetti Monster gets his fair share of class time
Merry ChrisFSMas!
I kind of grew up believing in it. We we’re Methodists and the church didn’t try to push anything resembling creationism on the members. But I loved science as a kid and watched a lot of Discovery Channel back in the day (when it was good and mostly nature documentaries).
It just made sense to me even as a kid. I thought “kids are like their parents but not exactly the same, those differences can lead to survival or failure, with the survivors passing on a majority of their traits in turn to their own children”. Extrapolate that a few dozen generations and its understandable that the kids could be very different from their distant ancestors. I understood that when I was seven and kept reading about science as I grew up.
I didn’t even hear about creationism until middle or high school. Most of the people who believed it were other students and their explanation was never more advanced than “god did it”. By this point I was already skeptical of such an explanation and combined with the complete ignorance of creationists on even the most basic precepts of biology or evolution it wasn’t hard for me to dismiss creationism. This opinion was further cemented when I read Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller in the senior year of high school. It trounced every argument for creationism I had heard, but his last chapter where in he still decided to believe in God confused the hell out of me. It would take a few more years before I understood the power of denial and what it truly meant to be a skeptic.
It’s pretty hard to separate belief in evolution from my path away from the church.
I was pretty lucky, growing up, as my parents gave me freedom to explore what I wanted to be, and didn’t indoctrinate me. I was taken to church, but I was also obsessively watched David Attenboroughs Life series with my Dad. I spent most of my christian life pretty open minded, not really settled between YEC or DAC.
I had already walked away from the church for personal reasons when I finally let go of my resistance to the reality of evolution, but it was probably the most obvious and significant shedding of a christian, closed-minded way of thinking (believing creationism is true because God says so, refusing to accept the evidence that says otherwise, and desperately building post-hoc justifications for thinking that way). It was intensely liberating, and I tend to refer to it as my “road to Damascus experience”. I remember being completely blown away by the realisation, it came on all at once.
The effect evolution has had on me – besides building my career around it – has been more that it has lead me to ask more questions. In essence, all that moment did for me was make me an agnostic who vaguely leaned towards DAC, so it was some years before I properly unraveled the rest of my theistic hangovers. Reading more about the evolution/creationism debate led me to a more surprising (from a religious point of view) discovery about the authorship of the bible, which was that the Genesis account was more or less copied from the Babylonian creation epic – important, since I had up to that point held that Genesis was the closest among Bronze Age theologies in describing evolution.
From there, christianity completely unravelled. In the space of about a week, I went from agnostic and occasionally wondering whether I would ever go back to the church (and mostly having my life choices be what was holding me back), to all-out atheist, outraged by the depth and extent of the untruths perpetuated by the church.
Evolution and learning about it in school (beginning in 4th grade) and college had absolutely no impact on my strong christian faith whatsoever. I just took it to mean that when those naive men wrote “God created the earth” they didn’t know how, and this was how. No biggy at all.
Understanding and accepting evolution had nothing whatsoever to do with my eventual riddance of my religious delusion. That was brought about by the observation that this god character was a jerk and didn’t mesh with my loving, forgiving personality at all. Come to find out, I was actually nicer than god! Then it hit me; there is no god! Duh. (Of course the process took years and I’m shrinking it down big time for the sake of space and time.)
“I just took it to mean that when those naive men wrote “God created the earth” they didn’t know how, and this was how. No biggy at all.”
Evolution isn’t incompatible with Christianity at all – it is, however, completely incompatible with fundamentalist Christianity.
The thing is, once you say “Fine, fundamentalist Christianity is provably wrong”, you then have to take the next step of asking “How did Christianity start? Weren’t all Christians fundamentalist by nature in the begining?”
This, of course, leads to the conclusion that even the more moderate and modern forms of Christianity are rooted in a system which is provably false at the most basic level.
How anybody’s faith can survive that logical chain I just don’t know.
I know, right? I think, having grown up around I suppose quite a bit more moderate versions of Christians, I tried to imagine god. There’s fundamental god of the literal bible, but the farther and farther you get from it, and the more and more I think about it, the LESS sense it makes. When we were linked the video of Tom Honey preaching about what god “might be” (with regard to causing the big tsunami a few years ago and its toll in human lives) it makes so very little sense.
A literalist might take this disaster as part of god’s plan to re-right the world again, like Noah and to some extent, Jesus, which is totally ridiculous, but in context offers some explanation. Anyone with brains more than that, to consider god just doesn’t care and does what he wants, that we can’t question or doubt him, regardless of what happens, or still cares a great deal, but comforts those who live through it, eventually, who question how a god could do such a thing, it is very difficult to comprehend how close they are to the edge of reasoning things out and still come up with some way to feel comforted and like god loves them.
They are in fact, guessing motives that they can live with; just on the other side of that barrier is that he’s not actually there, but they don’t come to that conclusion – it’s just baffling. Religion is so obviously an invention at its least fundamental state, that it’s quite a lot easier for me to comprehend the invention at its most fundamental – as well as I can understand rejecting that position. If you move away from the fundamentals, you are obviously creating an explanation by personal interpretation that sits a lot better with modern life, human progress, experiences and observations and personal morals, scientific realities you can accept, etc., making a version of god that relies on your personal philosophies, agrees with your agenda, exists, period. Who knows what he wants or why he does what he does and then fails to explain himself? He’s god – asking would be disrespectful – if he’s not clear, that’s our failing. Let’s use our brain to guess…. come on, you’re almost there! Almost there! What are you still doing over on the other side of this line?
You make very good points, Custador. I guess I just found another ‘chain’ that led me to shed my beliefs in the non-sensical.
It really hasn’t. I was introduced to the concepts of evolution as a small child, and while I harboured some incorrect ideas about it for a time (who doesn’t get things wrong as a kid?), I got those straightened out by High School.
My eventual rejection of religion really had more to do with my understanding of the cosmos than evolution – I have a small understanding of just how utterly meaningless and unimportant humanity and the planet earth actually are. So any belief set that espouses a universal creator being in the least interested in either is laughable.
How has Darwin changed my life? Recently, I started walking erect. Next week, I’m planning on using tools.
LOL!!!
It must be that “missing link” creationists talk about! Quick, kill him in the name of science!
That is totally quotable.
I’m always surprised the fundies don’t have a bigger problem with geology especially plate tectonics which seems to me to be as incompatible with the bible (as I understand it, I’ll admit ignorance) as natural selection.
I think we should start taking Darwin’s name in vain. Not because he’s bad or anything, but because he actually exists.
I thought I would add that after putting a copy of the book on hold at the library, I stopped by Half Price Books and found a late 50s/early 60s copy of it for $1.98! ;) (http://bit.ly/5Imib8)
I picked up The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too!
I learned about evolution from an early age, one of my favourite books when I was 8 was about the timeline of life forms, which I remember having pictures of skeletons showing the change from reptiles to mammals with artist impressions of what the animals may have looked like. Man I wish I still had that book!
It’s a beautiful theory. I don’t know nearly as much as I’d like to, but the understanding I have of evolution as a layman (I’m a physicist/engineer) flows naturally and logically from the initial premise. I remember reading a New Scientist article a few years back called something like “8 things you didn’t know about evolution”. I was surprised by the article, because they were all things that I did know, or rather things I had worked out for myself based on the basic principles of evolution. All of them were obvious if you just took half a minute to think about evolution.
Reading books about evolution by authors such as Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould has further convinced me that the things creationists claim are unexplained by evolutionary theory (like irreducible complexity) are actually explained increasingly well as research progresses.
So I have trouble understanding how so many Christians can say “I find it much easier to believe that God created us than to believe that we evolved from apes” (which we didn’t, OK? We ARE apes, and humans and other apes share a common ancestor.) Because, REALLY? I think what they actually mean is that they’d rather believe that humans are special compared to other animals, although why they need this validation is beyond me.
It’s hard to say how believing evolution had affected my life, because it’s just one scientific theory out of many that I have learned about. An easier question is how the creationist attempts to discredit on evolution have affected my life. They have brought evolution to the top of the pile of things I investigate via popular science reading (rather than as an academic/professional). So I suppose I should be grateful to the creationists, as evolution is fun to learn about and leads to mind-bogglingly cool information about awesome species I otherwise wouldn’t know about :)
But of course, learning about evolution sent me in a spree of insane, murderous debauchery!
One I learned that I’m just an animal, I felt no shame in behaving as one: killing, raping and bathing in the blood of the innocents.
I also take drugs and enjoy wife-beating, homosexuality, bestiality and terrorism.
And voting for Obama, don’t forget that one.
Oh yeah, goes without saying. There’s really nothing more relaxing than turning on the mood lighting and having a nice long bath in the blood of innocents. Understanding evolution has so many perks!
Don’t forget socializm. I think that fits in there somehow.
Hopefully, this is all sarcasm, but why would homosexuality be “thrown in” with wife-beating, bestiality and terrorism? Are those all equal to you?
I happen to be a homosexual Atheist, who voted for Obama. So, does that make me more of an animal?!
It’s all in sarcasm dear – meant to show the ignorance of people who just assume that athiests are all of those things. I am sure it was not intended to offend you or anyone.
I think it may be afterall homos are well know for their wife beating in between blowing buildings up, or something like that … :-)
Brian, you are definitely an animal.
Down in the tree, you are also an Eukaryote.
Up the tree, you are also first a Chordate and then a bit farther a mammal.
I like being an Eukaryote.
Please check here: http://www.fstdt.com
You will see that clumping together homosexuality and atheism with any other sort of evil is common practice.
We could also speak at length about your statement offending those who assume legal drugs or who practice consensual bestiality.
Sorry, I had to ask…
How can you practice consensual bestiality?
I lol’d…
Amateur.
“I also take drugs and enjoy wife-beating, homosexuality, bestiality and terrorism.”
This differentiates you from regular ole Christianity how?
He doesn’t try to hog the fun all to himself?
You can moan and complain about Francis Collins all you like; if it weren’t for him I would probably still be a fundagelical. It was the breakthrough that enabled me to bypass my inherent biases and actually learn about evolution (what? you mean I can actually believe this stuff without compromising my faith? woohoo!). From there it was a slippery slope to realising that god wasn’t necessary, and then that I had no reason to believe in him.
I think the hardest part for me is accepting that my grandparents were wrong this whole time. They were good people – cared for us and for their neighbors, volunteered at the church, volunteered at the local nursing home, and never pushed their ideas on anyone, even on us. They loved the Catholic church and the church loved them back. I still want to live my life as they did – honestly. But I’d also like to think that they were intelligent people. How did they never question their faith? It almost feels like I am betraying them by questioning their beliefs.
My mother, on the other hand, stopped going to church before I was born. She doesn’t talk about it much but I’d like to talk to her more about it. It’s a hard subject to breach with someone!
You can still be a good person, care for others, volunteer at a church and nursing home, without having to share their beliefs…
I’m treading very gently here; it’s obvious this is a deeply personal issue.
But I’d also like to think that they were intelligent people. How did they never question their faith?
Are you certain that they didn’t? I think every person of faith has doubts in some way, shape, or form. I certainly don’t mean to speak for them, but I’ve never met a person of faith who didn’t have doubts about something.
I don’t have any doubts. :)
Then forgive me for saying so, but how substantial can it be?
No, I’m not asking you to agree with me. I’m saying that, personally, I do not have any doubt whatsoever about my faith. You may take that as a hill of beans, but you are entitled to think what you like.
No, I get that. What I’m asking is, given the world and its constant, unavoidable presentation of evidence to the layman and scientist alike that the world simply doesn’t work the way that they thought it did back in the Bronze age when the Bible, for the most part, was written, how can that not cause you to examine the parts of your faith that are in conflict with that evidence?
*crickets*
It’s hard to explain, but the point i’m at now in my relationship with Christ, He has opened my eyes in a way that is indescribable. Literally. I may not know all the answers to the world and how it works but He does. Many of those things really don’t even mean much in the long run. I have relized thatn many of the earths wonders can be logically explained in the Bible. (For examle, polystraight fossils are a result and evidence of the global flood.) But aside from all that, I have a genuine peace in my life and I know that I have a purpose. Of course things arn’t always peachy for me, but I have a hope that it’ll work out for my good and God’s glory. Some things in life are just inexplainable.
Pascal was definitely an intelligent person, and I’d say also a good person, yet he came out with one of the most idiotic and deluded proofs for the existence of God.
Francis Collins is also a good person and a competent scientist, yet deluded.
In general, a lot of good, intelligent people does not question their superstitious beliefs.
Not everyone is ready to discard everything they know and feel about reality.
It’s a long, difficult journey, and it’s perfectly understandable that one (especially in the later years) may not want to start it.
Many of the people on this blog used to be fundies, and AFAIK for most of them getting rid of their beliefs was painful and difficult.
I don’t agree with this behaviour, but I think it’s understandable and very human.
Francis Collins is also a good person and a competent scientist, yet deluded.
In general, a lot of good, intelligent people does not question their superstitious beliefs.
I have to call you on that one. Francis Collins has absolutely questioned his faith, both before and during his conversion.
But on this topic generally, I would agree that believers tend to discourage questioning and doubt … I have no way of knowing how many believers actually question their faith or not; but, I do think most experience some form of doubt along the way.
“I have no way of knowing how many believers actually question their faith or not; but, I do think most experience some form of doubt along the way.”
I don’t know either but some of my own experience is that there are a large section of believers who would self identify as religious but in reality whether they believe or not makes not real difference to how they lead there lives i.e. they have reason to question their faith and in fact know very little about the faith that they identify with – call them culturally believers or something.
The term “civil religion” works well, I think.
Thanks for all your responses everyone. I guess I’ll never know whether they questioned their faith, but they were people of the Great Depression and WW2, so maybe they had more of a need for faith than we do today.
Honestly, it’s hard for me to remember when I accepted evolution as a scientific fact. It was sometime in college; I know that much for sure. Accepting it was the only thing I could do, I think, after honestly confronting the evidence for/against it.
In college, this spurred an intense, in-depth rethink of my theology, approach to the bible, etc., etc. That was definitely the most immediate and time-intensive impact.
Now, though, the impact is definitely less intense, though still important. In terms of wordlview and lifestyle, accepting the old age of the Earth and Universe has contributed to a developing awareness of environmental issues. And as the video which was posted yesterday about our place in the cosmos pointed out, understanding the age, size, and scope of the universe has contributed to a greater sense of humility — in terms of what it means to be a human being and to think and act as one.
I use the word “contributed” intentionally, because it would be dishonest to say that accepting the scientific theory of evolution was the only factor there … but it certainly was an important one.
It’s a joke, darling. Some fundies seem to think we’re all this. Simultaneously. And that all those are evil things.
Evolution has always been part of my reality, since I was a kid and comparing ants on my balcony to the segmented trilobites I saw in the books.
It has just always been part of my fascination for nature, and one of the most awesome parts.
I was just incredulous when I discovered that a sizeable part of the US population rejected it in favour of a boring fairy tale.
I live in Greece, and even if here evolution is NOT taught in schools, in the research center where I work none has even heard of “the controversy”.
I don’t “belief” in evolution.
I see it as a scientific fact.
With proof that scientist can see and such.
Belief for me goes hand in hand in faith and the theory of evolution has got nothing to do with faith.
I was an atheist long before I read ToE. I suppose I was lucky that my parents, both of them “social Christians” only, instilled a love of nature in me from an early age and I read all I could on the subject. My awakening to atheism began in Methodist Sunday school (don’t ask why I was there!) where we were told a story about Jesus making sparrows out of clay and I asked why they had to make nests and lay eggs if all God had to do was create them. My parents were asked not to send me any more. It was completed by many arguments in Religious Instruction class at Grammar School with a particularly obnoxious teacher. Reading Darwin only confirmed my disbelief.
Just curious, but what religious organization did you belong to?
At the time I was officially Church of England, having been baptised as such, but we were not attending church except for births, marriages and funerals. I was at sunday school because all my friends were in the Cub Scouts attached to the Methodist Church and I wanted to join in. I ast through a lot of services before finally “coming out” in my early twenties, a long time ago.
ok. What exactly is the description of the Church of England? I’m not familiar with the denomonation.
Better known as the Anglican church. Their US branch are called the Episcopalians.
ok thanks. :)
The Church of England was formed when King Henry VIII wanted a divorce from the niece of the emperor of Spain (Catherine of Aragon I think, could be wrong), however the only person at that time who could grant him a divorce was the Pope, and the Pope was somewhat beholden to the emperor of Spain and said no. Henry VIII responded by leaving the Catholic church and forming the Church of England, with himself as its head honcho. Then he granted himself a divorce. And then he proceeded to knick all of the gold and finery from Catholic churches, claiming that simplicity was purer (nothing to do with him wanting the gold for himself, you understand). I think that’s about it.
Catherine of Aragon I think
Yep. Niece of Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain).
oh yes, I remember that. Not that I was there, but I remember learning it. :)
Don’t you think it’s time now after 150 years for a new theory of evolution? You wouldn’t use a car or any other technical device that long even if some parts have been replaced, would you?
I admit the first theory that tried to explain our existence lasted for more than 2k years, so 150years is almost nothing compared to that space of time. But everything evolves, even theories, and it is a hallmark of such an evolution, not explained by the classical Darwinian theory by the way, that evolution accelerates, and theories’ turn-around times get shorter and shorter.
M.N.
“Don’t you think it’s time now after 150 years for a new theory of evolution?”
Don’t you think it’s time for a new third law of motion? 1697 was a long time ago. And how about those old Greek theories? they have lots of “parts replaced” and fine-tuning, but basically still are accurate descriptions of the natural world.
“You wouldn’t use a car or any other technical device that long even if some parts have been replaced, would you?”
Why not? There are plenty of extremely old technological devices still in operation today. For example, the Big Ben clock is 150 years old this year.
“But everything evolves,” Wrong. Think about stromatolites, or all the life forms that went extinct.
“evolution accelerates, and theories’ turn-around times get shorter and shorter.”
Wrong. Darwinian evolution is about life forms. It may be used as a metaphor for sociological trends, trends in computer technology, etc., but that “evolution” is just a loosely descriptive term for change or development.
About Big Ben. Of course, I fully agree it is still working, but you wouldn’t use it in rocket science, would you? It is like an exhibit in a museum, and that’s the same place, the Darwinian theory of evolution deserves. Upon this, I fully agree too.
That’s the problem with all ancient theories whether Greek, Indian, or Chinese, they still work in some aspects of life. You may have some fun driving a vintage car, but you won’t do it every day.
You are speaking as if the current ST of Evolution was the same as when Darwin wrote it. It’s not. Keep in mind that Darwin didn’t know anything about genetics and he had a very “sparse” fossil record.
Right, there is much more knowledge today, and therefore it needs a fundamental replacement and not only a patchwork. Unfortunately evolutionary biologists consider it a sacrilege to do this.
Er, no! The first principal of the theory of evolution is that we evolve through natural selection, i.e. those with favourable characteristics live to breed and so those characteristics get passed on and become stronger and stronger as time passes.
That principle is as sound and solid today as it was when it was first postulated by Darwin in On the Origin of Species 150 years ago.
It doesn’t have a “patchwork” – it has an awful lot of evidence to back it up, some of which requires further analysis, but all of which supports the first principle of the theory.
Also, are you a troll? Because that remark was either remarkably badly thought out or just a deliberate attempt to pluck nerves!
Evolutionary biologists would kill to disprove the STE, it would mean a sure Nobel prize!! The problem is that they surely don’t have your knowledge in biology, otherwise they would have discarded that old theory who happens to fit pretty well with our knowledge of the world. Definitely you should explain them how to do their work.
I ws going to say exactly that: If you think that Darwinian evolution is only an “approximation” and can prove that it doesn’t fit the facts exactly, then you can pretty much go and collect your Nobel Prize right now.
It’d be true if:
a) the theory of evolution wasn’t an ongoing study, with several different “subtheories” explaining and exemplifying how it works;
b) the theory of evolution wasn’t right, which it is.
The theory of evolution is in constant… evolution.
You are true, evolution is eternal, if you understand it as a notion that life’s complexity is generated naturally. But this is not a theory but rather a world view or weltanschauung. A theory as Sunny Day stated below is a model, an approximation, which has to be replaced from time to time.
Mathematicians use the term axioma for a general assumption on which a theory is based. The notion that different species emerge naturally is such a general assumption on which the Darwinian theory of evolution relies. I don’t mean to replace this general assumption but the edifice based on it.
A theory as Sunny Day stated below is a model, an approximation, which has to be replaced from time to time.
BS
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
I think a lot of the problem is that people don’t know how genetic mutation occurs, nor how genetic mixing occurs, nor what the genetic evidence actually is for evolution. I don’t suppose I know what more than a fraction of that evidence is myself – because there’s just so damned much of it!
The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.”
Please carefully watch your terminology. I guess we both do mean the same, but I hesitate to say: “a theory is not theory”. I therefore introduced the terms world view, weltanschauung or axioma in order to keep the terminology scientifically clear.
No, I don’t think we mean the same. You use it as it meant a mere guess or an umproven idea. I don’t know if you do it deliberatly or out of ignorance, but that’s not what scientists mean by “theory”.
“Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.”
I think you are getting the terms, scientific theory and scientific law mixed up. There is the “‘law” of gravity. One can drop an object over and over and it will still fall the same way. The statement that “gravity pulls things toward the earth” was once a theory until it was proven to be a law. The “big bang” or evolution are theories, not laws. No one was here when the earth came about and no one will live long enough to see more complex life forms evolve into another species. They are theories and they always will be. We can’t help that. Maybe there is evidence for evolution, but we can prove it over and over again.
Er, no. A scientific law is merely a description (usually mathematical) of a correlation that has proven to be invariable. The distinction between a scientific law and a theory is that a scientific law does not seek to explain why the correlation exists, only that it does exist. A theory seeks to supply a causative explanation.
For example, the law of gravity, or more generally, the inverse square law, is a description of how bodies move under the influence of gravity or other forces that diminish as relative to the square of the distance between them. Newton’s theory of gravity, or Einstein’s theory of gravity, are explanations that seek to explain how, exactly, two masses attract so as to obey the inverse square law and other laws.
as you said, a theory is an explanation of why something occurs, correct? Well, it doesn’t have to be right. Many “theories” have been proven wrong in the past.
Faith, are you Reap come back to troll? I think you might be.
Is Reap another person that commented here?
“Someone else”. Yeah.
FWIW, FAITH’s presence predates poor Reap by some time.
oh yeah, now I see them. nevermind
In which case, I apologise, Faith. Comparing you to a turd like Reap was not a nice thing for me to do.
“A theory as Sunny Day stated below is a model, an approximation, which has to be replaced from time to time.”
Excuse me, but no it’s not. If it was only an aproximation, it would have been proven wrong the second it didn’t exactly fit the known, observed facts. It does, however fit the known, observed facts, so it is not an approximation. It continues to make testable predictions every time we find new fossils and map new genomes, and it’s never once been wrong.
“A theory as Sunny Day stated below is a model, an approximation, which has to be replaced from time to time.”
OW! ow! OW! ow! OUCH! MOTHE#F@U#&R!!
I’ve always wondered if being QUOTE MINED hurts.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Best. Response. Ever. To getting quote-mined.
“How long is long for a theory to last and get credibility?”
Theories don’t have to last to get credibility. They just have to accurately model the real world.
Since I loved dinosaurs as a little kid, I learned about evolution indirectly by looking at pictures of whale and horse fossils. Nobody told me anything about it directly until I got to high school (class of ‘70!) I think evolution made a big difference in my life because, while I certainly would call myself a feminist, I never bought into some of the claims that men and women were not mentally different. I kept reading about evolutionary biology and the overlap with behavioral science and genetics, so by the time The Red Queen was published, I was comfortable with my very feminine proclivities.
In my lifetime I’ve seen the fall of the steady state universe theory and Freudian psychology. Compared to that, evolution has a really good track record.
If your point is that as longer a theory persists as better its track record, then you can comfortably lay back, as for the next 1850 years or so, Creationism will have an unbeatable track record. But first of all, what does a track record say about a theory itself? Isn’t it rather an attribute of its believers?
Creationism is not even a theory, but I agree that the track record says nothing about the validity of a well stablished thoery.
A scientific theory can be challenged and that’s why the longer it lasts the more credibility it has. Of course, as you correctly stated creationism is not a scientific theory by a long stretch of the imagination.
Call it as you want, theory or not. It is a way to understand the world’s existence as nowadays theories are, and one think is for sure you had to be very brave some 2k years ago to propagate it, but I agree now you don’t have to be brave at all only st….
I’m not going to call it as I want, I’m going to call it for what it is, and according to the definition of the words ;-)
It is a way to understand the world’s existence as nowadays theories are
No it’s not. It was for cavemen 10,000 years ago. Today it’s been proven wrong. If you still believe you’re not “understanding the world”, you’re just deluding yourself.
please tell me what evidence has proven it wrong. thanks
LRA posted this nice clip a couple days ago which sums up evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=player_embedded
hey, thanks for the video. There’s just one question that I have that has never been answered, that I know of… If the earth is billions of years old and animals have been here for millions of years, wouldn’t there be far more fossils around today? I mean, say it took many many generations for on species to turn to another wouldn’t there be tons more “in-between” fossils? Even if there are in fact lots of them, with the world being so old, don’t you think we would be stumbling over fossils by now? How many organisms must have lived on this planet in its history! Is there an answer for this. I was just wondering. If we still have so many fossils from so long ago, why is it rare to find one? How many T-rex’s, for example, must have lived on earth and died?
Well, there actually are quite a few fossils. The only reason there aren’t more is that the conditions necessary for fossil formation are themselves fairly rare. Here’s a decent place to start.
Really, evolution and creationism both have not been PROVEN right or wrong.
Let’s put it a slightly different way. One conforms to all available evidence, and one doesn’t (and in fact doesn’t even come close). So, as competing descriptions of reality, one is far superior to the other.
Really, i’m not being sarcastic in saying this question… Have you done extensive research on creationism? I know that sounds like i’m just trying to be a smarty pants, but I really want to know what you personally know about it. thanks.
By “research on creationism”, what exactly do you mean? If you mean familiarity with the usual arguments (irreducible complexity, watchmaker, etc..), I’m quite well-versed. If you mean “done scientific research that supports creationism as a viable theory”, there is no such thing, so no.
You know what, I’m gonna go ahead and call that particular line right now:
Darwinian Evolution has so much evidence for it, and absolutely no evidence against it, so that I honestly think it has been proven to be right beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever.
There. I said it. I sincerely doubt that any honest biological scientist in the world would argue that. It’s even been proven in a court of law (if you’ve never read the transcripts of the Dover School Board v. Kitzmiller trial, I suggest you do so, it’s an education all by itself).
Given that Darwinian Evolution has been proven right, and Creationism / Intelligent Design (they’re really the same thing) and Darwinian Evolution are mutually exclusive, the proof of Darwinian Evolution necessarily counts as a disproof of creationism/ID.
I’m amazed that my last comment has never occured to me before. Man, I’m just awesome, let’s face it.
Yeah, I mean what is your knowledge on it? Ummm… what points about it can you prove are false?…Do you have any “religious” background?… What are some irrefuteable pieces of evidence against creationism or for evolution?…etc.
My example about the bacterial flagella is a famous one. Custador pointed out my personal favorite below, about internal telomeres in human Chromosome 2. There are literally hundreds of examples of things that have been found that make perfect sense if evolution is correct, but are downright bizarre if they were created as is.
I would have to agree with you, M.N.
A theory is a theory no matter how wacked out it is. If someone wants to make a theory that the sky is blue because someone painted it a long time ago… more power to them. Oh course that would be a ridiculous statement, but if the person had very little knowledge about the sky, maybe that’s what they would think due to the evidence that it is blue. :)
A theory is a theory no matter how wacked out it is.
Well, no. A theory is a comprehensive description of a set of observations that makes testable predictions about future observations. Most wacky notions aren’t particularly comprehensive, and do not make testable predictions, and so are not theories.
What if they are comprehensive to the current society? What would it be then?
The second prong is the harder to surmount. Let me ask you, what experiment could be done that, if the results came out in a certain way, creationism would be shown to be false? If there is no such experiment, creationism is not a theory.
Elemenope, could you please explain what you mean more simply to me. I’m not quite understanding. thanks.
Ok. If creationism is a theory, then there should be something that creationism says that makes predictions. That is, if creationism is true, we should find certain types of fossils but not others, we should see certain types of biological structures but not others, and so forth. If creationism is a theory, if it makes such a prediction (like, say, we shouldn’t find any intermediate forms of bacterial flagella, for a famous example) and it is found that that prediction was incorrect, then the theory is incorrect.
On the other hand, if, as actually happened, we do find intermediate forms of bacterial flagella, instead of Creationism, having been simply shown to be an incorrect theory and discarded, instead the proponents ignore or handwave around the finding in order to keep their idea, it is no longer a scientific theory, but merely wishful thinking.
I’ll give you an example of a prediction:
Darwinian evolution says that we descended from chimps.
Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes.
Humans only have 23 pairs of chromosomes.
So, in order for Darwinian evolution to be correct, we (humans) should have one chromosome pair which are twice as long as all the others and which have end-markers in the middle where two chromosome pairs have fused into one chromosome pair. That is the prediction which Darwinian evolution makes to take into account the observed facts.
And guess what? Human beings have one chromosome pair which are twice as long as all the others and which have end-markers in the middle where two chromosome pairs have fused into one chromosome pair.
If that were not that case, the person who thought to test that prediction would be a Nobel Prize winner instead of just another scientist who proved Darwinian evolution some more.
Now: Creationism states that God created us all in our final forms. If that is true, then we shouldn’t be evolving as a species. That’s the prediction that creationism makes. But we are evolving as a species. Examination of skeletons from as little as 300 years ago shows them to have radically different heights and builds to today’s norm. Boom, there’s creationism disproved right there – and if creationists had any honesty, they would admit that that’s exactly why their religious belief is not a valid theory in any sense of the word.
Those are called myths
oops, that was an answer to
“What if they are comprehensive to the current society? What would it be then?”
Then, they are called myths
Then you don’t know what a scientific theory is. I would suggest you spend some time finding out what the differences in the definitions of the word are before you try to discuss it in a community full of people who know what the word means. Just to clarify, I still think you’re actually Reap.
I’m really not. sorry. I do agree with Reap on many points he made, but I don’t think he explained his point in a very polite way. It’s not a very good tecnique to force one’s views on another person. Reap, I am in no way trying to be rude to you… or anyone else. Personally I don’t want to force my views on anyone by saying “i’m right and that’s that”. Of course I want facts to back it up. I simply want to have a sophisticated conversation on a contrioversal issue.
Well, to be fair, Reap couldn’t really force his views on to us because he was arguing from total ignorance. He doesn’t actually know what the phrase “scientific theory” means, and when corrected he responded by being an arsehole. I’m afraid when you try that sort of tactic on me, you reap (see what I did there?) what you sow. I did already apologise (scroll up) for comparing you to Reap, by the way.
“Creationism will have an unbeatable track record.”
Unbeatable: that word, it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
I find the Christian stories amazing. How something can sound so unbelieveable and impossible and simple and be ever impactful intrigues me. Whoever is behind it is seiously smart and has got to be the most influential on the planet and in history. To me the simplicity is so much more influential, profound and exciting than theories and experiments.
After a while facts get boring and you want to imagine that there’s more to life like this. To be honest or maybe I’m too self absorbed I’d rather die believing that I’m greater than just existing briefly in order to die. If that’s the case then there should only be one goal in life just explore this fascinating world. There should be no government, ruling me, noone telling me what to do or acting like their better than me or have more land in this world than me. No human being should be lord over me, telling me I have to work! Meaning everyone should be able to give up work and just work out this world for themselves. Surely anyone who believes in evolution would agree with me. I should’t have to wear clothes much more be evangelized to as to what brand I should wear. I’ll give my vote to passing that law. lol
OK, now where was I….lol
Sadie, I not only concur, I think I love you!!
haha!
“OK, now where was …”
Well I think it’s where are you and the answer is in the land of the terminally dense.
Is that what this fascinating world is? Terminally dense. Why don’t we all just die and forget about it then. What’s the point of living? It can’t just be to hate and debate. At least give me a theory of hope. If all I have do is enjoy science then living is incredibly boring and monotonous and indeed terminally dense.
Wishful thinking is not fact … you being terminaly dense is.
Myself and others have explained Darwinian evolution on this thread directly to you and to others. You haven’t even read what’s been written – let alone attempted to absorb it – and I know that because of the stupid questions you continue to ask. So yes, you are being dense.
What simplicity?! There is nothing simple about the God hypothesis at all! It explains the incredible complexity of the universe and of all living things by saying “God did it” – but that is not a simple explanation! If it were true, God would have to be even more complex than his creation, so what it really says is “This incredibly complex thing called the universe was created by an even more complex thing called God” – so where did God come from? Another, even more complex thing? Or do you fall back on the standard “Oh, he’s always just been there” excuse? Because if that was the case for God (the most complex entity in this discussion), then surely it would more likely be true for matter and energy (by far the simplest things in this discussion).
God. Explains. Nothing. You cannot explain a thing by postulating something which asks far, far more questions than it answers, it’s just nonsense.
Well, if you think about it. Just pretend that there was a God that created everything that existed… He would have to be far more complex than his creation. As humans, I don’t think we’ve created anything close to the complexity of ourselves. And surely our “creations” can’t understand much about us than they do about themselves. We haven’t even discovered the all the secrets of the human brain. But… we are using our own brains to do it. Can we really know all about the brain when we are using that exact thing to decypher it? Just thinking about all that boggles my mind. I hope you understand what i’m trying to say. I don’t think it’s that far fetched to think that a more complex being created us, when we create things that are less complex than ourselves. Obviously that’s no scientific evidence to prove anything, but it puts some things into perspective.
That’s what I love about it. There’s so much to know. It’s just like science. It is impossible for science to explain everything because there is so much to know. You have to know everything and it is impossible to know everything. We’re always learning.
It’s made up, though. Science is not made up. It is measuring things that people can measure for themselves, anywhere, anytime, and check it. Religious / spiritual / metaphysical / immaterial ideas can’t be tested. Not even theoretically. It’s not “just like science”, it is critically different.
surely just because science can’t test something it doesn’t mean it’s made up. Maybe science just can’t test it YET! I heard of a man in a coma for 20+ years and science didn’t know he was conscious all that time. Many scientists and people have died without discovering this truth. What if in the future science finds a way to test things invisible. Man is always advancing. Can you imagine someone in the 1st century seeing traffic on the motorway they would think it was invasion from outer space!
I heard of a man in a coma for 20+ years and science didn’t know he was conscious all that time.
Yes, it was on the BBC last week, and speaking as a nurse all I can say is: Thatt wasn’t a failing of science, that was medical doctors being shit.
“Many scientists and people have died without discovering this truth.”
So your answer is that we should believe in any old shite that someone makes up. Please tell me by what method we should determine made up shite by X compared to made up shite by Y.
I find the Superman stories amazing. How something can sound so unbelieveable and impossible and simple and be ever impactful intrigues me.
“Whoever is behind it is seiously smart and has got to be the most influential on the planet and in history.”
Yet, however many times people share and elaborate on the story of Star Wars, doesn’t make it any more true. This is exactly how Christianity works. Its a great story that too many nerds took waaaaay to seriously.
You can get action figures for both, too! I have a boxed Jesus action figure that my brother gave me for a joke – it has “Real Gliding Action!” :D
Isn’t that great that you’ve got it. Everything great is made into a doll so everyone can have it. The impact is that much that you have a doll some people have shrines. Amazing – love the gliding action bit – where did he get it, seriosly.
Yeah, but you take one of those damned polyurethane lightsabers upside the head and it suddenly becomes as serious as, well, a head wound.
Exactly and I believe that if we Christianity did not let us think about things that are beyond us we would imagine creating things like superman, starwars, 2012 and make believe blockbuster movies that loads of people desire to see. People are designed to believe in something outside of them and if they can’t touch it and see they will create it. everything is created/made by something else from something invisible, e.g. a concept or thought. It’s in our DNA.
Special creation did not happen. Evolution is a fact. (It is both a fact and a theory because people use one word to mean two things: how life on Earth actually got the way it is, and human ideas to explain it. The first is a fact, the second is a theory.)
This is no more open to debate than whether the Earth orbits the Sun. Which is technically debatable, but it would be sort of crazy. The battle was fought and won a hundred years ago.
– Richard Dawkins
(It is possible that the Universe was created to look exactly as if it had not been created, but that is also crazy. It’s also possible everyone else is a figment of your imagination, or reality is a computer simulation, or an alien dream, or something, but none of those are testable. Science is testable.)
Sorry, the tested vs not tested approach just doesn’t convince me because I believe there are millions of things still to be tested and it will never be done because it’s impossible to discover them all.
Do dreams which are not physical exist? What is a figment of my imagination. How do we invent things that do not exist and make them a reality? How did the ideas of the internet enter a physical brain.
Sorry, for me there’s got to be more to it than a lab expriment. I mean there are people who believe in satan.
it’s not a question of tested vs not tested, but of testable. There’s no way to test the existence of God unless you’re talking about the kind of God who’s going to smite anyone who shouts very loudly ” GOD IS A DOODOOHEAD!”
Science is all about figuring out the things that are testable, then testing them. Funnily enough, anything that is truly untestable is untestable because it has so little impact on what we call the real world that it can be safely ignored (though a distinction should be drawn between being truly unfalsifiable, which is the scientific definition of untestable, and not having the skill, time or most importantly the money to be able to test it right now).
Yes, the question is whether it even theoretically testable.
How long is long for a theory to last and get credibility? Especially when religion talks about eternity? In order then for a theory to be credible it’s got to out run the notion of eternity.
Theory is a term that describes the ability of science to grasp truth,because in theory, truth can change.
That’s not accurate.
The scientific definition of theory is “a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena”, and does not imply a guess or doubt (which, scientifically speaking, would be a “hypothesis”).
When you drop an apple, it falls, which is a fact predicted by the general theory of relativity. Theories predict facts: atomic theory, germ theory, theory of plate tectonics, kinetic-molecular theory, theory of evolution. “Theory” is the gold-standard for certainty in science, there is nothing “more sure”, absolutely nothing is ever absolutely sure. Proofs are for mathematicians. Evolution is confirmed to a similar degree as the Sun being larger than the Earth. Darwin elevated evolution by natural selection from a hypothesis to a theory. There are no competing theories. Creationism is not a theory. All life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.
“How long is long for a theory to last and get credibility?”
Theories don’t have to last to get credibility. They just have to accurately model the real world.
Who said the other day that we should set speed limits on goal-posts? Religion talks about eternity therefore religion wins? Hmmmmm. No.
But who would know whether it would win as we’re going to die and eternity outlives everything. Unless you believe this world is coming to an end and evolution stops
A benevolent Creator that loves me, objective importance, eternal happiness… I honestly agree that it would be totally wonderful if it were true. But I think all signs point to “improbable beyond silly”.
Wanting something to be true has no effect on its truth.
Let me just ask anyone who would like to answer: What is truth?
Conformity to fact/reality or a statement proven to be true.
Both defintions exclude religion.
“Both defintions exclude religion”
Good answer Custador!! And why? Because “religion” isn’t the truth. The Truth is a Person.
I suggest you read the conformity to reality deffinition again, John.
I can see Faith is a fan of air-head philosophy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth
It is not complicated or a word game or whatever to say: wanting something to be true has no effect on whether it is true. Just because eternal life or objective meaning or gods or etc would be nice doesn’t mean that those things exist.
A Universe with gods is different from a Universe without gods. Either gods exist, or they don’t, and it’s not a matter of opinion.
Ok science uses the term ‘theory’ instead of ‘fact’ because it knows EVERYTHING is subject to change. As learning progresses new theories are not needed because a theory, as has been said before, can evolve. That is what limits religion, it is stuck with the bible, kudos to them for doing what they have so far to twist it to suit their needs.I would say enjoy it while it lasts….
Sorry for presenting the obvious but it seem the point needed to be made again for some.
Erm…. I get where you’re coming from…. But no.
The word “theory” in science means something completely different to the everyday use. They start as a testable hypothesis (note: That’s why ID isn’t scientific, it’s not testable). If the observed facts from testing solidly support the hypothesis, it becomes sort of “upgraded” to a theory. A theory in science is the highest level that an idea can acheive below being a physical law (and physical laws don’t apply so much to biosciences as they do to physics and chemistry).
That’s all a bit simplified, but it’s pretty much how it works.
Thank for that lesson in splitting hairs.
Words mean things, and Custador was rather gently trying to explain to you how the ones you were talking about are properly used and what they actually mean. The differences may seem subtle to you, but they turn out to be fairly meaningful ones.
Call it what you wish, he said he understood where I was coming from then muddled the point, I like to keep things as simple as possible. We can go into slang definitions and the ‘it means this to me’ if you like but I don’t see where that will help. Although it would be entertaining. Now please refrain from explaining the obvious to me, thank you.
Simplicity is a virtue only so long as a reasonable amount of accuracy is preserved. Your simplifying actually distorted some basic concepts to the point where they aren’t really meaningful anymore. That’s what Custador was ever-so-gently pointing out with his correction. The words “fact” and “theory” have fairly well established and precise meanings in science, meanings you were muddling with your simplifications.
Yup.
Im sure you are a blast at parties, unfortunately most people are not scientists. Don’t get me wrong I understand you but when you deal with the real world your ramblings will cause people to tune out. Now I ask you please save it for someone who needs it. I, do not.
Reap, if that was true you wouldn’t have come out with this little gem:
“new theories are not needed because a theory, as has been said before, can evolve. “
Which is probably the most innacurate thing I’ve ever read about the concept of scientific theory. When theories are no longer supported by the known facts, they don’t “evolve”, they’re just plain wrong – and they get replaced. I have covered this earlier.
@ Elemenope: Are you as surprised at me as I am that I’m still being fairly gentle? Must be post-gym endorphines or womething. Wierd.
Im sure you are a blast at parties
I am, actually, but that’s neither here nor there. :)
unfortunately most people are not scientists.
Unfortunately, we are talking here about science. That’s what the conversation was about. If we were talking about something else, then it would be appropriate to use the definitions appropriate to that subject. Since we are talking about science, it is reasonable to use the definitions peculiar to science.
Don’t get me wrong I understand you but when you deal with the real world your ramblings will cause people to tune out.
I live in the real world. Is there another place to live?
Now I ask you please save it for someone who needs it.
Oh, you so do.
Are you as surprised at me as I am that I’m still being fairly gentle? Must be post-gym endorphins or something. Weird.
LOL. I was. That’s why I went out of my way to point it out. :-) Me, I must’ve taken some cranky pills. Or we somehow slipped into a mirror universe…
I see, you were just making a backhanded appreciative slap, because you are an ill mannered lout?
“Thank for that lesson in splitting hairs.”
Thanks for simplifying & clearing that up.
@ Elemenope: It’s always possible that I just got all the anger out of my system by banging my head against the brick wall that was Jeff’s obtuseness the other day.
It’s always possible that I just got all the anger out of my system by banging my head against the brick wall that was Jeff’s obtuseness the other day.
What thread was that on?
The Indeanapolis school that banned atheist websites. I spent three solid days pwning that arsehole in every argument he could come up with, and he still claimed he’d won. Priest, apparently. Used to lying.
I still have nightmares with that guy :-p
I see, you were just making a backhanded appreciative slap, because you are an ill mannered lout?
No, more pointing out that Reap didn’t know how lucky he was that he didn’t get slapped down immediately and oh-so-hard as his inanity normally would merit round these parts, and usually Custador is good for the job.
I don’t have a problem with those who are sharp to the dim-witted, so long as they have cause. It’s when it becomes gratuitous, cruel, or undeserved that I become annoyed.
Oh yeah, that guy. The one with Fox News being fair and balanced for real, and such. I remember now. Yeah, he was a twit.
gratuitous, cruel, or undeserved
You just described my nicest character traits!
LOL.
Color me confused.
I don’t know if ‘nope thought I was talking to him, when I meant to address Reap. I know I did mess up the comment nesting.
Doh!
No worries, Sunny Day.
Where’s Jabster when you need him? He can usually be relied upon to be the raging angry ying to my reasoned yang when debating a moron.
“Where’s Jabster when you need him? He can usually be relied upon to be the raging angry ying to my reasoned yang when debating a moron.”
I’ll take that as a complement although I would like to point out that raging and angry aren’t really correct as it more just saying what you’d would like to say. You must have been in meetings at work where you just wanted to interrupt someone and say stop being such a thick twat, well the internet gives you the chance to do that! Also I think it takes only a few posts to determine whether you can have an actual debate with someone or they’re going to turn about to a complete idiot who in no way intends to change his mind but instead has decided to post “evidence” of why his worldview is correct when it’s the same “evidence” that has been presented time and time again and shown to be, well complete rubbish. You know they’re not going to change their mind so why not just cut straight to the insulting them part? Obviously there is a case for a self fulfilling prophecy here.
Only if they persist with this babble of evidence will I want to grab them by the lapels and bellow into the face just how much of a thick twat they are while getting someone else to slap them around the face and maybe a few kindey punches (they don’t leave bruises) …. and relax … anyway that was a far longer post than I intended and I would normally have joined in with Jeff but firstly you seemed to be ‘ripping him a new one’ (sometime I disgust myself with my uses of Americanisms) and secondly I was working away for two day so don’t have much chance to posts.
May your reasoned yang be fertile in the belly of your woman … doesn’t that sound better than I’ll pray for you?
If everything is subject to change is it possible that scince could change its minf about God if as the bible says he will come back again on judgement day?
And… that judgement day will be in 2012? Because you know, 2 thousand years later one could begin to think that he missed his date…
well, yeah
if God ever provided actual evidence of His (or Her) existence, you’d get… well, maybe 10% of scientists converting to the best-supported faith tradition. The rest would be waiting on replication to show it wasn’t just a glitch in the data, and there’s always going to be a small percentage who truly can’t accept the idea.
But that’s not the issue. What is the issue is that right now God has not provided any proof of existence beyond things that can be easily pinned on random luck and quirks of the human brain. For someone who allegedly has the power to write messages with the stars themselves, that’s really not good enough.
Or if any other of the many thousands of gods made a personal apperance …
I agree that jugement day is aproching. And it says that no one knows the hour but God. So if everyone is saying it will be in 2012, I can bet you it definatly won’t be then. :) Who knows, it may be 5 thousand years from now! But there will be a day. And if one dies before it, they will know the truth anyhow.
Yup. Which is why I’m preparing to meet my lady Hel, of course.
Hey, I’ve as much evidence as you do.
You are all very witty yet you wit falls on deaf ears. I tuned you out and proved my own point. Nice try though. At least try next time……..
Reap, this is the last time I shall attempt wit on half of one, I assure you.
So when someone says they have, “Tuned [the listener] out” does that mean they are just babbling to themselves like an nincompoop?
More to the point, is he actually stupid enough to think that he won that point in anybody’s opinion but his own? Want to take bets on his age? I’d say…. Mid teens. Somewhere between fourteen and seventeen. He’s got that bumptious know-it-all who can’t be corrected quality that I remember having back then. Yeesh. Makes you cringe thinking back, don’t it?
If I could’ve, I would’ve slapped some sense into sixteen-year-old me.
My favorite part is the one where by us making things too complicated, we’d lose people who weren’t part of the conversation to begin with.
Oh I don’t know, I don’t think I’ve had changed it really. Part of growing up. Plus, I had a ball back then – wouldn’t really want to change it, even if I was in dire need of common sense. Aren’t all sixteen year olds?
I was too uptight when I was sixteen. I needed to loosen up.
It’s not about point winning is it if no one will then know the ultimate truth or is that just a man thing
Ha Ha nice! I will tell you all what. I do a radio show and would simply LOVE to debate any one of you in a real conversation. not pecking at keys but a real conversation with real-life back and forth. Contact me ourlord_darwin@yahoo.com. You are invited! I have an answer for everything. Now step up or go back to your pecking.
Hmmmm, tempting, but the odds on me being able to keep from swearing at you profusely on air are slim at best.
Ha Ha and I will answer that too!! Next sad excuse…?
I have an answer for everything.
Wow. I am humbled.
More seriously, though, what would possibly possess me such that I’d want to debate or discuss with a guy who doesn’t even know what the key terms mean?
It does sound like a recipe for getting shouted-down by a hick talk-radio host who doesn’t know what he’s talking about but covers it up by shouting, doesn’t it? Think I’ll pass.
More assumptions? Wow and to think I actually had some respect for you. Try looking into things it seems to be flaw you have, the lacking in doing so I mean.
Way to be Reap!! You’ve got them backed into a corner now! Go Get Them!
YOU CAN DO IT.
Now anything ‘Nope or Custador says will just be proof of Reap’s AWESOMENESS!
He is awesome. That much is clear.
To coin a phrase, I didn’t leap to any conclusions about Reap. I took a tiny, tiny step – and there conclusions were.
That is what I thought…. you can type big though can’t ya? Very impressive. The old ‘I am too above you to actually speak with you’ You all are pathetic. But what do I know? After all I am so ’simple’ but I am too real for you…
Not really, you’re just too stupid to hold any prospective of a meaningful discussion. If you’d have actually read and learned instead of being a bumptious little know-it-all squitter who actually knows absolutely phuck-all, I might consider you worth debating. As it is, I don’t. Because you are a bumptious little know-it-all squitter who actually knows absolutely phuck-all, you see.
@ Elemenope: I think the world is starting to right itself now.
Oh name calling now? Um, I win. Nice colors you have though
He wasn’t making an argument. Merely an observation.
There’s nothing to win.
Endorphin highs are cruelly short.
obvious… http://xkcd.com/386/
That was my desktop picture…until my laptop died.
Inanity – check
Bloated sense of self-importance – check
Calling You Out! – check
Immaturity Trifecta!
Ding! Ding! Ding! We Have a Winnar!I
Just keep pecking……it suits ya, have fun and goodnight……..yawn.
You still here, thought you tuned out?
Unfortunately just another thing Reap turned out to be wrong about. What can ya do?
It’s funny, y’know, because while he did turn out to be a pipsqueak, ignorance like that really does get under my skin, for serious. It bothers me that there exists people who can be told by a whole (virtual) room full of people that they are making fools of themselves and they don’t even take the sensible step of skimming a Wikipedia article (or even, heck, googling it) to see if their claims have any merit whatsoever. It takes, what, twenty seconds to get a sense of whether it’s bollocks or whether they might have a point?
Yep. That’s one of the reasons that despite my many and varied character flaws and faults, I am never above being corrected. If you can prove me wrong, I’ll accept it. Guess I’m a natural scientist :-)
I like being wrong. It just means I’m learning something new.
Indeed. For example, it’s funny, up until very recently, I thought the word “strident” meant something very different from what it actually means. I saw it in what I thought was an odd and incorrect context, and so I mentioned it to a friend, who called me an idiot and told me to look it up in a dictionary. And there it was.
@Elem
Out of interest what did you think strident meant?
What did you think strident meant?
I thought it was an adjective that meant, roughly, overreaching or loftiness in goal-setting.
Clearly, I was way off.
Ha Ha Ha peck, peck peck!! You haters waste your time pecking away because you can not back up your rhetoric with ACTUAL WORDS you are a symptom of what is so wrong with the word all talk no action stay here and wallow. I am sorry Dan such a great post and question gets screwed by people who do not believe in what they preach enough to share it with the world. You all call names and try to shut me down but given the opportunity to do so in real time you fall short. SHAME ON YOU ALL you are weak I hope your keyboard shields your dignity too……ooppps, it doesn’t!!
By the way all responses are ignored by me TALK or shut the hell up!
Wow. Classic.
This puts it over the top: “By the way all responses are ignored by me TALK or shut the hell up!”
What the deuce?
Read the whole hilarious exchange just above.
I’ve been trying–and I swear, I could feel brain cells committing suicide (not because of anything the regular posters have written, of course)
Sorry Reap, I can’t hear you over the sound of how awesome you are.
God damm it I missed the awesomeness that is Reap … makes me want to have a sex change so I can marry him! Anyone got any really, really awesome babies that we can adopt … I doubt it as you lot are just so lame in the bright light that is Reap but I thought I’d ask.
why get a sex change? Just move somewhere at least marginally civilized!
He is really awesome! He must have very powerful superpowers like… well… he has a radio show!!!!111!!11!
I’m grateful that he waste his time speaking with us normal people!
Still tuned out then? I bet you’re a lurker, aren’t you Reap?
@ FAITH and Sadie:
It’s pretty clear that neither of you actually knows what science is or what a scientific theory is. It’s also pretty clear that neither of you are willing to accept that it’s not the definition that your faith gives you (which is utter, utter bullcrap, by the way) because that would mean accepting that your faith is not as valid a system of understanding the world as science is.
That being the case, why debate here? To people who are patiently trying to explain why you’re talking vaccuous crap and who you choose to ignore, you just look like idiots. Actually, you are idiots, because you’ve turned off the ability to assimilate new information and to think critically. One day you might wake up. I’m not holding my breath.
You both come accross as being a bit like the slightly creepy kids who occasionally knock on my door and try to convert me to Jeeeeebus, the kids you can tell are actually only really happy because they’ve finally found an environment where they can make friends despite their creepiness.
My heart goes out to you, Custador. It will probably mean nothing to you and you’ll probably try to cut me down… but I’m praying for you.
Don’t. I mean it.
Actually, you know what? I find it incredibly offensive that somebody would pray for me, or even just say that they were going to pray for me, despite knowing how ridiculous I think the God hypothesis is. You know that I think it’s an absurd bunch of bullshit, and yet you try to involve me vicariously against my expressed wishes – you’re fuckin’ sick, Faith.
Missed a good opportunity there Custador.
“but I’m praying for you.”
(breaths in) That sounds so naughty…… When?
(throatily) Will you be alone?
(gravelly) What are you wearing? Something Red? With heels?
Bad Girl….