babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » The Crusade Against Evolution

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Crusade Against Evolution
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 28 September 2004 05:37 PM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From this month's issue of Wired.
The Crusade Against Evolution: In the beginning there was Darwin. And then there was intelligent design. How the next generation of "creation science" is invading America's classrooms.

From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 28 September 2004 06:04 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't wait for these clowns to force Harvard and Yale to teach "Intelligent Design" in biology 101 - that'll be year one of the humiliating collapse of the US Empire.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 28 September 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In other news, an Ant today looked at the beauty of it's anthill, the cohesion of its society, the remarkable adaption of its body to the environment and its singular superiority among the lesser arthropods among it, and proclaimed that it was a product of God itself and HIS intelligent design. No word on the "Big Foot" phenomenon, which appeared above the anthill, sometime ago.

[ 28 September 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 28 September 2004 10:33 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The thing that is particularly insidious is that if the scientific community refuses to address the right-wing evangelical's creationist claptrap the conservative evangelicals scream that they're "victims" of the "lib-left scientific establishment" who are "persecuting Christians". Kind of like the so-called "liberal media bias" crap in the U.S.

If the scientific community does address the conservative evangelicals creationist stuff then it legitimizes them as somehow holding an "equally valid" point of view.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 28 September 2004 10:37 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's so bizzare to watch. Fundamentalism is on the decline in Canada, and I suspect in most developed countries, and yet the US is going totally mad on it.

For much of my last stint in Winnipeg I volunteered at the Manitoba Museum. One of the curators told me that he was wandering through the public portion of the museum and overheard a family from Pennsylvania going through the museum. One of the kids wanted to go look at the Earth History section, but the father said, "No, we don't believe in that."


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 28 September 2004 10:51 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This issue crystalizes the fundamental issue: is there such a thing as objective science.

Of course, the anti-Darwinists claim there isn't:

quote:
Intelligent design advocates say that teaching students to "critically analyze" evolution will help give them the skills to "see both sides" of all scientific issues. And if the Discovery Institute execs have their way, those skills will be used to reconsider the philosophy of modern science itself - which they blame for everything from divorce to abortion to the insanity defense. "Our culture has been deeply influenced by materialist thought," says Meyer. "We think it's deeply destructive, and we think it's false. And we mean to overturn it."

And if ever science is overturned, materialist science, the result will be that anyone will believe and ACT UPON whatever superficial nonsense the networks decide to make "true."

Bush will be remembered as a moderate.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 28 September 2004 11:15 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I find it interesting how so many people lambast anyone who dares to question Darwin's theory. Kind of like the old days, when it was a crime to dispute Aristotle, isn't it?

To me, fundies are fundies regardless of whether their book is the Bible or the Origin of the Species.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 28 September 2004 11:22 PM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No one's lambasting anyone. Until a better theory comes along, it's pretty useful to know the leading, most plausible one. Sure some hold Darwin as a sacred cow, but who has a better explanation? Determinists will always be that, but I'd rather learn what likely happened as opposed to complete and arbitrary fiction.

That is unless I'm in fiction 101. Last I checked it wasn't a substitute for biology 101.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 28 September 2004 11:51 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I find it interesting how so many people lambast anyone who dares to question Darwin's theory.

I question Darwin's theory everyday. I prefer (from fossil studies) a middle of the road punctuated equilibrium model (especially after/during large extinction events) with a splash of gradualism (for those boring times when ecosystems are stable and relatively contiguous).

Of course, I have no time for Intelligent Design. There's no testable proof or data to support that nonsense.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 September 2004 12:01 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
I find it interesting how so many people lambast anyone who dares to question Darwin's theory. Kind of like the old days, when it was a crime to dispute Aristotle, isn't it?

To me, fundies are fundies regardless of whether their book is the Bible or the Origin of the Species.


Uh, I think you kinda missed the boat on that one.

It is no crime to criticize the Origin of Species or Darwin's model of evolution. But you had better have a good replacement model that explains the things we see today, otherwise it's so much bafflegab and you'll get laughed off the pages of the serious scientific journals.

The Bible is a whole different book than the Origin of Species as well. To compare the two is not really possible.

The Bible is a collection of various pieces of literature that together purport to be the immutable Holy Word of God.

The Origin of Species is, essentially, an attempt to coherently describe what observations Darwin made and how to account for those observations.

Anyone is free to attempt to explain those observations in a different fashion, but bringing in the Deus Ex Machina of God, Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Baal, or whoever will mean that you will get slapped for trying to mix religious dogma and scientific reasoning.

[ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 29 September 2004 12:02 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't mind a splash of that gradualism myself, Briguy, if you'd be so kind. Good vintage, what?

quote:
I find it interesting how so many people lambast anyone who dares to question Darwin's theory. Kind of like the old days, when it was a crime to dispute Aristotle, isn't it?

What old days would those be, Gir? And who's saying it's a crime to dispute Darwin?

Incidentally, I don't know if you equate "Darwin's theory" with the "theory of evolution," but if so, it's a category error. Evolution -- that is, descent with modifications -- is not a theory, but a fact, or a set of data to be explained by a theory. Darwin's theory, to oversimplify unforgiveably, is that evolution can be explained by natural selection.

(And a theory, incidentally, is not at all the same as a hypothesis, or a guess, or a set of speculations).

Darwin's theory, unlike "intelligent design," can in principle be proven wrong, and like Briguy suggests, has definitely been disputed.

[ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 29 September 2004 01:18 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
I find it interesting how so many people lambast anyone who dares to question Darwin's theory. Kind of like the old days, when it was a crime to dispute Aristotle, isn't it?

To me, fundies are fundies regardless of whether their book is the Bible or the Origin of the Species.


Ah, but you see, many scientists have questioned the importance of natural selection. Somebody mentioned punctuaded equilibrium, for instance.

But even with these new approaches to evolution, natural selection (Darwin's idea of how evolution works) is still very important, since it is the main mechanism through witch nature disposes of the useless individual mutations.

Darwin, by the way, didn't invent "evolution". He found and extensively explained and documented the mechanisms through which natural selection operates. Evolution itself is as much of a fact as the sphericity of the Earth, whatever the religious nut cases say!

[ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 29 September 2004 01:35 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gir: These people are not attacking evolution with just any other alternate story in mind. Among macroevolutionary theorists, there are multiple schools of thought, only one of which (admittedly the dominant one) proposes strict gradualistic natural selection as the cause of species genesis.

What these people are doing is attacking the very intellectual methodology under which these theories are developed. And they are doing so, not because they see an inherent flaw in the methodology, but because entirely they do not like implications of the result. It's like being angry at the universe because it didn't let you change the rules to get a particular lunch on a particular day. And in doing so, they undermine so many other sciences, human and natural.

No longer is it necessary to inquire, for instance, as to the source of poverty, since we can simply give the answer that The Poor Have Always Been With Us and to ask that question is to "break down society."

What things like macroevolutionary theory and a theory of poverty have in common is a methodology to find systematic relationships in information that is both chaotic, abundant, and inaccessible. To do this, scientists and others have developed methodologies to separate wishful thinking from known facts. What these people wish to do is to undermine this entire edifice.

And they do so in such a deceptive way. What they wish to institute is an ideological tyranny where we can no longer separate the reality of the situation from their wishful thinking. And they do so by claiming that our attempts to separate these things go against "intellectual freedom" and "diversity", hijacking the very language that frees the scientist. They claim that scientists are intolerant because they use tests that separate the theoretical wheat from the chaff. Because they don't want it separated---that is the true intolerance, Gir.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 29 September 2004 04:01 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mandos, while I think your subtle explanation of motives for pushing intelligent design applies to some people, for many fundamentalists it is a little simpler. Evolution clashes with a literal interpretation of Genesis, therefore evolution must be wrong. As far as I know, fundamentalists need to believe that the Bible is all literally true with only one interpretation possible.

Science deals with the material universe, and cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, who is not a part of the material universe. Fundamentalists [including atheists] feel the need to be certain one way or the other and are not willing to experience the discomfort of doubt.

My own belief is that billions of years ago God started to create the material universe, evolution and all, but She was careful to wear gloves so we will never find Her fingerprints.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 29 September 2004 04:41 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
My own belief is that billions of years ago God started to create the material universe, evolution and all, but She was careful to wear gloves so we will never find Her fingerprints.

That belief is untestable and therefore is faith, not science. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the two shouldn't really be mixed. At least, not without some good drugs and a splash of maple whisky.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 29 September 2004 04:56 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
That belief is untestable and therefore is faith, not science.

That is precisely the point I was making. Faith should not be imposed on science, and science cannot prove or disprove faith.

So does maple whiskey taste better than regular whiskey? I usually drink cheap vodka and O.J. myself, but am willing to be educated.

[ 29 September 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 29 September 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For your average creationist, Contrarian, what you say may be true. I am talking about the creation lobby, who are people who believe as you say they do, but are intelligent enough to know both what the larger consequences are and how to frame the issue in the deceptive way that Gir seemed, for a moment, to have bought. I was dealing with the insidious objection Gir raised, not with the whole body of creationist thought.

I too am religious. But I am not into the practice of religion as an outlet for an inexplicable manifestation of a maliciously deceptive urge.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 29 September 2004 10:49 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So does maple whiskey taste better than regular whiskey?

It tastes like dessert. I enjoyed a bottle of it when last in Jasper. Enjoyed it enough to bring one home.

The bottle I have comes from High River, Alberta. I'm not sure how many brands there are, but I'd guess not many.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rich L
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4915

posted 30 September 2004 12:00 PM      Profile for Rich L     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Like any scientific theory, I don't think that Darwin's Origin of the Species should be taught in school as representing the "truth." However, it is important and influential enough that it should be taught in school.

I used to wonder how it was possible in the middle ages for society to blindly follow religious doctrine, repressing all scientific knowledge, and oppressing anyone who questioned the myths of the day. Now I am starting to see parallels.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 30 September 2004 12:21 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, you're not. These people want 6-day creationism taught in schools in order to return to those days, because they believe that evolutionary theory is anti-Biblical. Their plea for tolerance is instead an attempt to supplant the very criteria that present one thing as scientific and the other not.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 30 September 2004 02:43 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
...I am not into the practice of religion as an outlet for an inexplicable manifestation of a maliciously deceptive urge.

I'd make that into a bumper sticker, except no one would have time to read it before the light changed.

Rich L; you need to understand that science tries to explains how things happen and it is based on evidence. What Darwin did was propose a mechanism, called natural selection, for how evolution would work. He was building on the efforts of earlier scientists such as Lyell [I think?] who deduced from geological process that the Earth was much older than had been thought. This longer time meant that it was possible that natural selection could take place over a long time so that species could change over time. Darwin was not the only one to think of it, Alfred Wallace came up with the idea independently.

After Darwin many scientists confirmed that his proposed mechanism explained other things. They refined his ideas and added to them and eventually built up the biological sciences to their present state, including the whole understanding of and use of DNA, genetically modified crops, etc. Modern Biology and Medicine are both built upon evolution; it's not a theory anymore.

You can see a similar case of how science works in Simon Winchester's book about Krakatoa; he has a chapter about how the idea of continental drift was seen as ridiculous until somebody thought up a mechanism for how it worked; then all sorts of scientists start finding all sorts of evidence which confirms that mechanism is the actual one.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 30 September 2004 03:21 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The idea of evolution has been around since at least the first greek philosophers. Ovid talks about it in his metamorphoses. Darwin's grandpa Erasmus Darwin wrote about it, and so did Lamarck and others in the 18th century. But Darwin was the first (Wallace the second) to propose a mechanism through which evolution could operate. And he backed his proposal with a lot of evidence, since he knew that his ideas were very controversial.
From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 30 September 2004 04:37 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rich L:
Like any scientific theory, I don't think that Darwin's Origin of the Species should be taught in school as representing the "truth."

Do you believe that theories of electromagnetism, gravity, a heliocentric solar system, or hydrodynamics should also not be represented as "truth"?

Do you know what "theory" means?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 30 September 2004 04:39 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
Darwin was the first (Wallace the second)

Darwin and Wallace were agreed that they had come to their conclusions independently and contemporaneously, so "first" and "second" are kind of meaningless here.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 30 September 2004 04:47 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can see a similar case of how science works in Simon Winchester's book about Krakatoa; he has a chapter about how the idea of continental drift was seen as ridiculous until somebody thought up a mechanism for how it worked; then all sorts of scientists start finding all sorts of evidence which confirms that mechanism is the actual one.

Actually, I came up with the idea of continental drift -- me and lots of other bored schoolkids, probably.

Of course, I was kind of late in the day (ca. 1973), and had neither evidence nor a mechanism. And I didn't think through the implications. But I distinctly remember sitting in a grade 4 class, not really paying attention, but looking at the old Mercator map of the world hanging up front, and thinking "Africa and South America look like they might fit together, sort of, if you moved them."

It's not much, but that's how Wegener got started. Later he went and found fossil and geological evidence.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 30 September 2004 05:44 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
To me, fundies are fundies regardless of whether their book is the Bible or the Origin of the Species.

I am surprised that someone as intelligent as Gir should think something so simplistic.

Those who think Origin of Species is a truer book than the Book of Genesis can point out a thousand ways in which the former explains things which the latter does not.

The Bible has no explanation for fossils! Biblical Adam was born homo sapiens sapiens, so of course could not be descended from a long chain of forms, protohumans all.

And the Bible does not explain why human embryos have gill slits, just as fish do, and just like reptiles and amphibians do. Evolution says: "We share common ancestors." The Bible: "Duh."

Of course, if someone insisted that The Origin of Species was right in every particular, and that evidence to the contrary could be ignored, then they'd be "fundies".

As it is, they are simply people who recognize that Darwin, like Einstein, has provided an important explanation for how things really work.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 September 2004 05:55 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
As it is, they are simply people who recognize that Darwin, like Einstein, has provided an important explanation for how things really work.

Northrop Frye, like many of his illustrious predecessors in the discipline of poetics (see Aristotle, etc), has also provided an important explanation of how things really work, especially an important explanation of how books and writing work, that would, if people ever bothered to read him, stop many people here from believing that all these books are somehow in competition ...

But, of course, no one reads him.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 30 September 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, one book says that humans are descended from apes, over a multi-million year history.

Another one says that two specific humans, Adam and Eve, were created by the breath of God and had no animal predecessors.

They are in conflict, aren't they? And one of them is true, and based upon the investigatory efforts of thousands of human beings. The other one is a nice old story.

I don't buy the idea that there is no difference between literature and science. If E doesn't equal MC squared, then there is little to fear from the "story" of nuclear weapons.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 30 September 2004 06:41 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Luther said that the Bible was the Word of God because it contained the Gospel -- not because every single word of it was absolutely historically accurate. I don't see that getting all bent out of shape over creationism does much to really further the work of the Church.

Man, it sure bends my fundy friends out of shape when I say that.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
koan brothers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3242

posted 30 September 2004 07:28 PM      Profile for koan brothers     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That species evolve is a fact.Some of my fellow Americans are seemingly intent on proving that the process can be stopped, and in some cases reversed.

[ 30 September 2004: Message edited by: koan brothers ]


From: desolation row | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 01 October 2004 08:48 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From "The London Free Press and Church Bulletin"

I read stuff like this, and all of a sudden I'm worse than Mike Harris when it comes to teacher's salaries. That a teacher can teach all those years without and inkling about what critical thinking is, or the simple difference between the words theory and hypothesis should relegate them to something like the average industrial wage. Anything more and the education consumer is being ripped off.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2004 08:51 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
They are in conflict, aren't they?

Not to me.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 October 2004 08:59 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
That a teacher can teach all those years without and inkling about what critical thinking is, or the simple difference between the words theory and hypothesis should relegate them to something like the average industrial wage. Anything more and the education consumer is being ripped off.

Heh. What institution do you think makes it next to impossible for such a teacher to be fired for imcompetence, Tommy?

Careful what you wish for!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 01 October 2004 10:14 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

Not to me.


Well, if one of these stories said humans had no animal ancestors, and the other says they did, both of them can't be true, surely?


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2004 11:50 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does one of them say, "Humans had no animal ancestors"?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 01 October 2004 12:03 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Does one of them say, "Humans had no animal ancestors"?

Yeah, the Bible does. It says Adam was formed from dust and Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

Modern evolutionary theory cannot co-exist with ancient creation myths. They are contradictory and only the former has any evidence to support it.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 01 October 2004 12:22 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by black_dog:
Modern evolutionary theory cannot co-exist with ancient creation myths. They are contradictory and only the former has any evidence to support it.

They can co-exist... just not as science. They co-exist as explanations for the history of the world; the one scientific, the other allegorical.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2004 12:27 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by black_dog:

Yeah, the Bible does. It says Adam was formed from dust and Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

Modern evolutionary theory cannot co-exist with ancient creation myths. They are contradictory and only the former has any evidence to support it.



No, black_dog. The Bible does not say, "Humans had no animal ancestors."

I find this such a weird discussion, but then I never read anything much above the level of a shopping list literally. I am surprised that so many here do.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 01 October 2004 12:43 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just for clarity so there's no arguing from vague-or-not-memories, the King James Version:

quote:
Gen2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


I fall into the 'coexist, but don't use the Bible as a science text any more than you'd use Darwin as a morality text' camp.

Edit: skdadl, one reason literal readings get brought up is that the bulk of 'creation science' types tend to adhere to a Biblical literalist point of view. Arguments on the level of 'that can't be true, it's not specifically stated in Genesis', and that sort of thing.

Here's a link to my favourite resource for debunking creationist claims, by which I mean the 'throw all that science rubbish out' creationist claims.

[ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: aRoused ]


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rich L
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4915

posted 01 October 2004 02:15 PM      Profile for Rich L     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contarian:
Rich L; you need to understand that science tries to explains how things happen and it is based on evidence.

Huh? I appreciate the lecture, but it's in response to what? I think you are misreading what I was trying to say.

quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:
Do you believe that theories of electromagnetism, gravity, a heliocentric solar system, or hydrodynamics should also not be represented as "truth"?

Do you know what "theory" means?


Science is a method; science does not equal "truth." The moment you use the word "truth," you are talking about faith. I've heard it both in philosophy courses as well as in physics courses. You might want to check it out for yourself. And, frankly, I could do without the paternalistic tone.


*edited to fix my mis-attributing of one of the above quotes*

[ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: Rich L ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 01 October 2004 02:16 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Even a creationist should be able to admit that Genesis is not an eyewitness account, since it covers generations and does not claim to be written by God. I don't think I've tried using this argument.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 01 October 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whoops! I meant to edit my post above, which refers to a post two spaces above, and instead quoted myself, a bad habit to get into.

Rich L, your first quote "you need to understand that science tries to explains how things happen and it is based on evidence." was written by me as an introduction to my explanation of how science is different from faith. Your previous post indicated that you did not understand how science works and that you considered evolution to be merely another matter of faith.

[ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rich L
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4915

posted 01 October 2004 03:57 PM      Profile for Rich L     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Rich L, your first quote "you need to understand that science tries to explains how things happen and it is based on evidence." was written by me as an introduction to my explanation of how science is different from faith. Your previous post indicated that you did not understand how science works and that you considered evolution to be merely another matter of faith.

Maybe it's the exact language I used or that fact that I didn't thoroughly explain the point I was making that seems to be setting some folks off. In retrospect, my one sentence doesn't adequately expalin what I was trying to say, so I will try to do a little better here. I'm hoping this will mean others will feel free to debate me rather than sermonize me.

However, I'll reiterate that science is not the same thing as "truth." I'm not saying that scientific conclusions should be treated as a matter of faith. Science is a highly systematized method, based on observations and experiments, through which we seek to discover truths, yes. But scientific conclusions don't equal the truth because, for one, the scientific method is never finished - through further science, we often see yesterday's scientific conclusions superceded or re-examined as part of today's conclusions. As well, anything not meeting the criteria for the scientific method (e.g., that it's observable, repeatable, etc.) isn't valid as a scientific conclusion. Maybe the hulabaloo is over my use of the term "truth," but I hope this makes my perspective (which I adopted while studying theoretical physics) clearer.

Now why was I bringing this up in this discussion on evolution? Well, the debate over whether evolution should be taught as part of the science curriculum in schools often turns into people (usually creationists) "picking over" the theory of evolution - referring to tiny gaps in the scientific evidence, inconsistencies in findings, or observations that have been difficult to explain within the framework. These don't somehow "disprove" evolution as creationists would like to claim because evolution isn't just one of many alternate truths that can be posited one for the other. In other words, it's not the "truth" of evolution vs. the "truth" of creation vs. whatever other alternate "truth" someone wants to interject; rather, evolution is a product of science and not a truth that we can choose to believe or not believe. Evolution is a framework within the scientific method and hence is qualitatively different than a truth (which I think was the point you were trying to make, Contrarian) - research and scientific debates regarding evolution are ongoing and, as a result, evolution isn't just some finished or wholly complete "truth" that can be rejected based on technicalities.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 01 October 2004 04:17 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I did misunderstand your original post, which seemed to me to be expressing a creationist viewpoint. And I certainly agree that scientific knowledge changes as new information comes in; so it is not an eternal "truth".
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 01 October 2004 05:40 PM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
From "The London Free Press and Church Bulletin"

I read stuff like this, and all of a sudden I'm worse than Mike Harris when it comes to teacher's salaries. That a teacher can teach all those years without and inkling about what critical thinking is, or the simple difference between the words theory and hypothesis should relegate them to something like the average industrial wage. Anything more and the education consumer is being ripped off.


Ahhhh David Herbert. This guy has been trying for a few years now to get his religious beliefs taught as science. A few years ago he
circulated a petition to try and get creationism taught alongside evolution in Thames Valley District schools. Although I believe the Ontario provincial govt. sets the curriculum so I'm not sure why he would waste time at the local school board level.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 01 October 2004 06:46 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yeah, the Bible does. It says Adam was formed from dust and Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

In truth Genesis has two contradictory versions of the origin of humans, but the first is so succinct and almost casual ("And God created man in his image, male and female created he them," which has given rise to all sorts of speculation about early Hebrew notions of the male and female nature of God -- but I digress) that most readers ignore it in favour of the second, the dust/rib version, which comes along a bit later.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 October 2004 08:19 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
They co-exist as explanations for the history of the world; the one scientific, the other allegorical.

So what status are we to give the claim that God made man directly, then put him to sleep, and then made woman from his rib?

An allegory is supposed to represent a deeper truth; this one seems to represent the idea that the relationship of women to God passes through men and is mediated by men.

I don't think that is an allegorical truth, I think it is a sexist falsehood, somehow consecrated by being found in a really old book.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2004 08:41 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

So what status are we to give the claim that God made man directly, then put him to sleep, and then made woman from his rib?

An allegory is supposed to represent a deeper truth; this one seems to represent the idea that the relationship of women to God passes through men and is mediated by men.

I don't think that is an allegorical truth, I think it is a sexist falsehood, somehow consecrated by being found in a really old book.


Um, jeff house: you are denying that all human societies until recently ran on multiple sexist falsehoods?

And most still do?

Do we happen to know what Darwin thought of women's enfranchisement?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 01 October 2004 09:21 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Um, jeff house: you are denying that all human societies until recently ran on multiple sexist falsehoods?

The clocwork universe works fine, so long as the universe is a clock. Does time run out?

Keep winding the clock.

[ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: Frac Tal ]


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 01 October 2004 09:30 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Frac Tal, your post makes so little by way of sense, there are really no points at which one can begin to grapple with it.

Hell, I'm not sure I could even mock it were I so disposed.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 01 October 2004 09:33 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Old Goat:

I'm still figuring out the quote function!


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 01 October 2004 09:48 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To posit a clock suggests (even demands) a clockmaker. Something the creationists of course latch onto.

The error is that you're confusing science with engineering. Clocks don't evolve. (I'd like to say I know clockwork, and he never evolved, but that would be an in-joke only for older babblers, so I won't)

Anyway, engineering isn't science. It is a practical expression of the fruits of science, and is subservient to it. I fear that the distinction between the two is becoming lost even in the halls of academe.

BTW, NOVA has been running a great series on PBS on the origens of the universe leading up to the beginnings of life on Earth.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 01 October 2004 10:04 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Begs the question, what is science? Is Nova the last word?

Is it either/ or? Creationism or Evolution?
Seems kinda limiting to me.

I know,I know, there was a huge cloud which under enormous forces and pressures contracted into a point where there was a gigantic explosion, and this is the result, etc, etc...

Through observation, we discover our own footprints.

[ 01 October 2004: Message edited by: Frac Tal ]


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 01 October 2004 10:09 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Then there is the feminist version of creation
WARNING! SEXIST JOKE!!!

God created the world and then She created woman; and she gave the woman three breasts. She asked the woman if she wanted any changes to be made, and the woman said she would prefer to have just two breasts; so God removed the third one.

And God said to Herself; " What should I do with this useless boob? Oh, I know!" And God created man.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 01 October 2004 10:12 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Shit, there goes the rib theory!
From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 01 October 2004 10:18 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Science is, among other narrower definitions, the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation. If that's good enough for the people at Oxford, it's good enough for me.

My mention of the NOVA series was merely sharing something I thought was interesting to some who may be interested. The popularisation of science isn't often done well by the media, even when they have good intentions.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 01 October 2004 10:28 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's interesting.
Thank you.

From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 October 2004 10:35 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Um, jeff house: you are denying that all human societies until recently ran on multiple sexist falsehoods?

And most still do?

Do we happen to know what Darwin thought of women's enfranchisement?


I've no idea how this relates, at all, to a discussion of the differences between science and religion.

And Darwin's opinions of womens' enfranchisement mean virtually nothing in light of the fact that the correctness or not of his description of a process by which species originate is independent of any of his subjective viewpoints on human enfranchisement.

There have very likely been some fantastic scientists who were utter troglodytes in terms of their views on aspects of humanity. It doesn't change the fact that if their description of the behavior of the universe correctly fits the facts, we retain it.

Just as science is essentially independent of national origin, it is also essentially independent of the fallibilities of the humans who add to it, since what matters in the end is whether a description is valid or not.

An example of the swiftness with which science can dispose of erroneous ideas was the speed at which the theory of plate tectonics was found to be an accurate explanation for the shapes of continents as they exist today. As I recall from 'lance, it was apparently as late as the 1950s that the plate tectonic theory was not accepted as valid, and it was not until the early 1960s that observations were made that verified the validity of the hypothesis.

Wegener could have been the shiniest happiest person ever, full of great ideas about the liberation of women, animals and amoebae, or the basest troglodyte and racist, but that doesn't change the fact that his hypothesis happens to be the best one we have to explain the continental drift and the shapes of such continents.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 October 2004 10:46 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
you are denying that all human societies until recently ran on multiple sexist falsehoods?

No, I am denying the idea that these falsehoods have a claim to truth.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2004 10:54 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

So what status are we to give the claim that God made man directly, then put him to sleep, and then made woman from his rib?

An allegory is supposed to represent a deeper truth; this one seems to represent the idea that the relationship of women to God passes through men and is mediated by men.

I don't think that is an allegorical truth, I think it is a sexist falsehood, somehow consecrated by being found in a really old book.


Gee, jeff house, excuse me, but ...

If we are going to hold original texts to the same literalist standard that you prefer, then we gotta hold them all to the same standard. Fair enough?

Genesis offended you because it was, you said, sexist. You couldn't see an endorsement of women's equality in Genesis.

So I am still wondering whether you can see any such endorsement in Darwin. ???


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 01 October 2004 11:27 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The problem with Genesis is not that it doesn't have a clear endorsement of equality. The problem with Genesis is that it appears to actively send a message against equality. Darwin's overall theory is not intrinsically either sexist or anti-sexist.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 02 October 2004 03:20 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can see skdadl's point (or at least I see some version of skdadl's -- and Northrop Frye's -- point). There are different kinds of "truth". Consider the sun. How is it viewed by astronomers? By poets? By plants? By farmers? By the Aztecs of 700 years ago? The way that each of these thinks of the sun is "true", each in its own sense. I would never say that all of these "truths" are equal, but rather that they cannot be directly compared. What is "true" in science is a very different thing than what is "true" in culture. A "myth" can have no scientific truth, but can hold a great cultural truth. Darwin's ideas describe (among other things) our biological origins. The bible (love it or hate it) is a huge part of our cultural origins.

I am inclined to science, without having a strong scientifc education, but I try to understand other perspectives.

I also feel (without having thought it through much yet) that present-day creationists are more about politics than about culture. I am not religious, but I don't see the diverse writings of the bible as being in conflict with science. I do see the creationists as being in conflict with science, and in that conflict I know which side I'm on.

[ 02 October 2004: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 02 October 2004 03:26 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What is "true" in science is a very different thing than what is "true" in culture. A "myth" can have no scientific truth, but can hold a great cultural truth.

But some myths are simply false. They do not necessarily hold any "cultural truth."

Skdadl's point about what Darwin thought about women's equality is one I cannot answer. I haven't read Darwin, ever, trying to ascertain how he felt about women's suffrage.

His theory isn't about that. But the Genesis story IS precisely about women's inferiority.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 October 2004 06:47 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Genesis offended you because it was, you said, sexist. You couldn't see an endorsement of women's equality in Genesis.

So I am still wondering whether you can see any such endorsement in Darwin. ???


I don't know, skdadl - I mean, Genesis didn't just not have an endorsement of women's equality - it had an endorsement of women's utter inferiority. Gee, do you think the people who came up with that story had any vested interest in human society believing that women were evil and inferior?

I'm guessing that Darwin probably didn't have an endorsement of women's utter inferiority, although it's true that there have been lots of feminist critiques of scientific theories that didn't seem sexist but actually could be considered so if you dug deep enough.

In any case, even when a scientific theory has been found to have been sexist in outlook (I'm trying to think of the example we went over in women's studies - it was quite interesting), the fact is, the scientific theory is always open to review and change through better scientific theories that replace it. But some fairy tale about how God came along and made a man out of dust and a woman out of dustboy's rib - well, that's really not a theory that can be challenged in any way because there's no data to analyze and no evidence to refute, unless you were also to make up some fairy tale out of broad cloth to counter it.

"No no! I have a better one! What REALLY happened is that a big tornado came along, and through some crazy stroke of chance, built the first human being out of a bunch of amoebas that got all mixed up together!"

[ 02 October 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 02 October 2004 11:23 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The difference between science and religion is that science has a self correcting mechanism, while religion does not. Once something is "true" in religion, it is "true" for all time. In science, when more or better information comes along, our "truths" change accordingly.

Truth be told, most people, scientists included, sling the word truth around haphazardly.

Except in the field of mathematics, the vast majority of scientific "truths" are provisional.

There's nothing wrong with that. We might see a bus coming down the road when we want to cross. It could be an hallucination. Or it might be real. Scientifically, however, it serves to accept that the bus is a provisional truth.

This is the real strength of science. It works better, and much more often, than other systems of thinking.

Philosophers might dissagree, but I've watched them cross the road before, and I know what they know in their heart of hearts.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 02 October 2004 12:51 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
I also feel (without having thought it through much yet) that present-day creationists are more about politics than about culture. I am not religious, but I don't see the diverse writings of the bible as being in conflict with science. I do see the creationists as being in conflict with science, and in that conflict I know which side I'm on.

This is a good point and we need to think what worldly motives creationists may have. The most disturbing possibility is a collective Apocalypse-wish; they want to gain political power in order to bring an end to the world; and conveniently, the USA is the country to do it. Gee, that sounds like an evil guiding intelligence.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 02 October 2004 02:12 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
we need to think what worldly motives creationists may have

It is about who runs the household. And the country. If Biblical "allegorical truths" are given the same status as scientific investigation, then it is utterly appropriate to argue that women should do the housework, defer to a man, and become an overall doormat.

And then she shouldn't have a say in the organization of the political world, either, as she is suited to domestic concerns.

Treating science and allegory as equal in their claims to truth opens a Pandora's box. The creationists then can just roll in, along with their fundamentalist brethren.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 October 2004 02:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

I haven't read Darwin, ever, trying to ascertain how he felt about women's suffrage.


How appallingly incurious of you. Try a biography.

He was a Victorian male. Guess what you are going to find?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 02 October 2004 02:26 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Marx was also a Victorian male. So we will have to have specific references, I think.

But I do think this is a non-central point. Wallace, for example, the co-creator of evolutionary theory, thought that all species were created through natural selection, except humans. Humans, he said, were created directly by
God.

So his social/cultural ideas overrode the mechanism he identified. But that mechanism was sufficiently powerful in explanatory terms that his cultural preferences soon went by the wayside.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 October 2004 02:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But how does that affect his scientific theory? (Whoops, I asked that of skdadl, not jeff.)

[ 02 October 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 October 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah! Marx! Horrifying Victorian male! The stories we could tell!

Look, you guys: this is your territory. For me to make my points fairly, I would have to start the seminar on Aristotle's turf, or Vico's turf, or Frye's turf.

Given that this is a thread for literalists, all I can do here is troll.

But y'all do puzzle me, for intelligent people. I mean, there are data; there is information; there are facts, yes. On their own, though, data mean little -- they always have to be interpreted.

So some people here talk instead about something they call Truth. Ha! Truth, I think, is somewhere beyond data.

If Darwin were The Truth, no one would have bothered to write after him. Why?

I accept evolutionary theories of life on earth totally and easily, although I'm a touch amused that people think of Darwin as some exclusive inventor here. He was very good, but he wasn't the first; he wasn't the last; and who cares in those terms? That is not how thought, or the history of thought, works.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 02 October 2004 04:06 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
His theory isn't about that. But the Genesis story IS precisely about women's inferiority.

It was a long time ago when I read some of Joesph Campbell's stuff, but I do recall him saying that the Genesis story is about the arising of male-centred religions in the face of the female-centred ones of the day.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 02 October 2004 04:40 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Robert Graves wrote about that kind of thing; not Genesis specifically, but patriarchy replacing matriarchy. From a very, very superficial glance at one of his books it seemed to come down to who got to be on top during sex.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 October 2004 05:00 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
the Genesis story IS precisely about women's inferiority.

I hadn't noticed this categorical claim before, but, y'see, this is what I mean.

Like, I see someone write a sentence like that, and I think, gosh, jeff, that's cute. And you are entirely entitled to that opinion!

And you are probably not alone in that opinion!

But jeff: it IS an opinion!

There are other ways to read Genesis. You can stomp your little tootsies and insist on the correctness of your reading, your interpretation, all you like, but there are other ways.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 02 October 2004 05:08 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes; like the interpretation that woman came from man's rib in order to be beside him as a partner, under his arm to be protected; and I forget what the third thing was.

Also note, Adam was the first man to blame his spouse for his own sins. OK, women do that too sometimes.

[ 02 October 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 02 October 2004 05:42 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I expressed myself inexactly. I was trying to point out that the Genesis story is ABOUT the direct relationship of men to God, and the indirect relationship of women to God, mediated by men.

The Origin of Species is not ABOUT that; Darwin's possibly-sexist views do not appear in Origin, and his theory is in no way undermined because he may have preferred women in a secondary role (though I am still awaiting evidence on that point.)

Of course, someone can always assert that humans interpret stories; and who is to say that the Genesis story is not about the relationship of moray eels and sea urchins to God?

That's true. But since narly the whole of humanity will interpret this part of Genesis is a sexist way, straining for other interpretations simply guarantees political defeat at the hands of fundamentalists.

In fact, Genesis was written before humans knew very much about their origins, that's why it is wrong. I prefer to admit that, rather than claim that it is an allegory suggesting deeper truths.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 02 October 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I mentioned above about Luther's notion that the Bible was the Word because it contained the Gospel, not because it had an accurate depiction of creation.

To me, the important part of the whole garden story is the fact that man fell from grace because of ego -- the serprent's promise that by eating the apple one would be like God. I see in myself that same old ego size problem at work often.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca