Expelled!: Or the battle for evolution heats up the teacup again?

BEAR on 7/4/2008 at 13:39

Quote Posted by Epos Nix

Evolution works just fine for what it's worth, yes. But if you consider that observable matter accounts for about 4% of the total energy density in the universe with the other 96% being 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', and if you take into account that we have almost no freakin' clue what 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' really are because we can't observe them directly, you start to realize how infinitesimally small a grasp we as humans have on the nature of the universe and the events that take place therein.

This isn't to say anything other than that you shouldn't get too proud or arrogant when speaking of what goes on in every day life as if you know the state of things so well. In actuality, what you know and think and feel accounts for a percentage of everything that scientists would label zero on the universe-scale of things, and yet here you are telling theists just how wrong they have it.

Science isnt about knowing everything; science is the quest for understanding, and it never stops. The only reason that you even know those things to bring up is because scientists have spent their lives devoted to those questions, but some just see it as a way to degrade science by saying "You cant explain that! Its God, God I say!"

The thing that I dont understand is why religious people arent more interested in the universe. With everything that we learn the universe just gets stranger and more incredible, even if you think there is somehow a creator involved, can you really think that its as simple as the notion of our God? There are people delving into the makings of the universe at this very moment, contemplating reality and existance in real terms, how does theology compare to that? The ancients thought that mice were created from hay for gods sake, why would anyone think they would know god when they saw it? Whatever is at the ends of the universe is so much bigger and more interesting than anything we can imagine and I think we'll all be better off when we realize that.

EDIT:

Quote Posted by Thirith

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but if I don't: how do Darwin's theories "demolish in the clearest possible way the notion that there were problems beyond study of the physical universe"? Can study of the physical universe explain why a person may be moved to tears by Mozart's Requiem, for instance?

Yes, it can explain that. What you are talking about in this case is neuroscience. I don't know if we've cracked it exactly yet, but Im sure they know which parts of the brain are used in processing music and which parts are excited by hearing it. Neuroscience is fairly young so give it time, but we'll get it.

Also you guys have got to slow down you are running me ragged here.

Chimpy Chompy on 7/4/2008 at 13:43

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

. Of course evolution has nothing directly to say about the big bang or extra dimensions - what it did do is demolish in the clearest possible way the notion that there were problems beyond study of the physical universe.

Oh ok, fair enough. My background is Physics, so it's my duty to underestimate the significance of the soft sciences. :cheeky:

Thirith on 7/4/2008 at 13:50

Quote Posted by BEAR

Well, I'll be surprised if neuroscience will ever be able to explain why person A is moved by the "Lacrimosa" in Mozart's Requiem while person B is bored, both of which are very different from saying "It stimulates region X of the brain." Nor do I believe that neuroscience will ever get to the bottom of the whole free will debate. However, I'm keeping an open mind.

jay pettitt on 7/4/2008 at 13:55

Quote Posted by Thirith

Yes.

I refer to clearest possible way because of the stinging clarity of Origin of Species - it is significant not just for answering how and why we happen to be, but also for the shear simplicity and elegance of the solution - and it is specifically important because, by answering those questions, we crossed a divide that society at large previously thought impassable. We became self aware of our place in the physical universe.

Origin of Species was quite simply stunning. One might well be moved to tears by it's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knYOcaQ-x5o) brilliance.

Quote Posted by Chimpy

My background is Physics, so its my duty to underestimate the significance of the soft sciences.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Ben Gunn on 7/4/2008 at 14:56

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

We became self aware of our place in the physical universe.

You keep repeating it, what does it mean? This sentence looks more adequate for Copernicus'es breakthrough than Darwin's.

Have you read The Selfish Gene? According to it, the gene is the basic unit that natural selection "works" upon. From this Dawkins extrapolated that we, with all our complex lives, are nothing but vessels,- temporary beings whose sole purpose is to serve the good of our genes. From there he concluded that we are nothing but ultra-complicated robots with no free will.
Is this the self awereness you were talking about? Is this our true place in the physical universe?

Maybe it is so but I can guarantee you that no one is walking on this planet, experiencing him/her self as a pre-programmed machine (well, maybe sometimes)- so how does evolution contributes to our self-awreness?

Even Dawkins himself (and Im a big fan of Dicky D), in a Q&A session Ive seen on youtube (maybe Ill be able to find it later on), has expressed resentement to the idea that his atheism is derived from his brain structure (derived from his genes), rather than from his rational (hence free) thinking.

EDIT: There it is- (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4SoSUahUmX0) (8:50-9:15)

Epos Nix on 7/4/2008 at 15:42

Quote:

Nice way to miss the point of my post :thumb:

Quote:

even if you think there is somehow a creator involved, can you really think that its as simple as the notion of our God?

"our God"? How simple is the notion of "our God"?? Keep in mind that if a God did exist and wanted to propagate a certain message thousands of years ago he would have to do it in certain simple terms that the people of the time would understand.

jay pettitt on 7/4/2008 at 16:11

Quote Posted by Ben Gunn

You keep repeating it, what does it mean?

Old Coppernickers placed planet Earth as being somewhere off-centre in the universe - a considerable result in it's own right. Darwin showed where human beings as a species fit in to the big picture.

People keep telling me I should read some Dawkins, it's on my to-do list but I'm afraid I can't split hairs with you on this one. That said the argument that you didn't quite make about free-will sounds to me like a gross simplification leading to a false dichotomy - clearly we do not spend our entire lives constrained to carrying out a preprogrammed set of commands instructing us to eat Fish and Chips on Friday and Roast Dinner on Sunday, it is Dawkin's genes that provide him the facility to arrive at atheism.

But yes; it is by understanding evolution and it's mechanisms that provides us a clear insight of ourselves in the big picture and how and why we came to be.

Ben Gunn on 7/4/2008 at 16:45

I didnt make any "gross simplifaction"- that is how Evolution and Dawkins are taught in the academies, at least in those classes that Ive been to. TSG states it as Ive summed it so if anyone should be accused of gross simplifications, it's Dawkins himself. But you didnt read it so we will leave it be.

And you didnt explain yourself at all, only repeted the same idea in more words.

Look, evolution can be used for any idealogy you want. Only an ideaology can give humans the answers they want. Evolution can tell us how we came to be but not the why (in the sense of what for). Everyone needs a sense of purpose in thier lives, to set goals and try to achieve them- evolution has nothing to say about that.
Im glad I wasnt born to a religious family so Im free to set my life as I please without being afraid of the wrath of some supernatural being. But that doesnt mean that if Im lost I can find a new direction in science in general or in the theory of evolution in particular.

You need to understand the science is neutral,- if a man grows to be resentful and distrustful of other people, he can find some very good justifications in Darwinism when he comes to comply his misanthropic world view. On the other hand, one can use evolution to reinforce his new-age, holistic beliefs if he wants to- after all, the theory sais we and all the world of flaura and fauna are one big family.

Evolution can be used, and has been used to justify just about any godamn thing while initself, poor innocent thing, is neutral as everything scientfical is.

So no. In the sense that is the most important to us, evolution has nothing to say about our place in "life, the universe and everything".

Vivian on 7/4/2008 at 17:03

Or moreso, the fact of evolution suggests that if you stumble around looking for some predetermined 'purpose' to your existence then you are wasting your precious time. Life has only the purpose you give it, and as much or as little as you chose.

PS chimpy, soft science my arse. All physicist do is cry into their matlab script when the real world doesnt fit their model :mad:

jay pettitt on 7/4/2008 at 17:30

Quote Posted by Ben Gunn

stuff

Bigger picture is a metaphor for the physical universe - awash as it is with time, matter and forces that interact with each other - the sum of which we call nature. Evolution places how, what, when, where and why (it answers the why question very clearly and precisely) the human species came to be, entirely within the bounds of nature.

Science is perfectly apt at finding answers to why and what for questions. What makes you think it isn't? Why do you get hungry? If you ask 'for what [higher] reason was I placed on this earth?' and you can't find an answer through studying the physical universe you should consider that it is your question that is broken rather than declaring the physical universe insufficient and just making stuff up.

The meta-physical is intellectual doodling designed to help consider answers to questions that aren't perhaps apparent - why are we here, what was that unusual sensation. But there is no substance to it; none of it is real.