Nonfiction Books You Are Reading
Pages
| Author | Topic: Nonfiction Books You Are Reading |
|---|---|
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, March 21 2005 10:13
Profile
Homepage
Not to speak for Schro, here, but it is a bit hard to know how to respond to that unless you identify what your beliefs are. We know you're a Christian, and you've implied that you don't buy the theory of evolution, but which of the many possible arguments do you use against it? That the fossil record doesn't support the theory well enough? That it's incompatible with a strict interpretation of the Bible and therefore must be false regardless of the evidence? (To the point that maybe God created the world with these fossils in it already so that it looked like dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but they didn't?) Or what? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, March 21 2005 10:42
Profile
Homepage
We've had various arguments along these lines several times. Was the last one really so long ago that you weren't here? Basically, without meaning to start a big flamewar like these things tend to descend into, I don't buy evolution for mostly scientific reasons. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
FAQSELF
Member # 3
|
written Monday, March 21 2005 14:53
Profile
My perception is that the majority of people think of science as either an encyclopedia report or as a potato sprouting leaves in a glass of water. It's an incomplete view of science. They aren't aware that there is an active discussion on many things in science- they perceive science as merely a book of facts grouped into laws. Thus "problem" with creationism is that people have this elementary view of science, and then go hear a creationist (who usually has a scientific background, although almost never in fields directly related to evolution), and go away convinced that evolution and related fields are giant atheistic conspiracies. I've been called one of the carriers of the black-flag of atheism because of my research. Creationism is usually sound-bite based, anecdotal, and rarely provides the full context of many of its claims against evolution. It tells people what they want to hear. Also, these people are rarely informed of the religious scientists who accept evolution as a fact- people like Glenn Morton and Keith Miller. They are told one side of the story, and don't have the correct perception of science to evaluate the quote mines, ambiguous experiments, misconceptions (especially about thermodynamics) and other questionable tactics used by some creationists. I've had an individual try to argue with me that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. When I asked him for a mathematical description of what the second law states, he was unable to provide me with anything. He was stuck on entropy is disorder, but could not provide definitions of either one. He read something by a creationist, and didn't bother to do research by himself. This is a double-edged sword, one which must be equally applied to science. Just because there's a press report on a scientific finding doesn't mean it's correct. -------------------- A few cats short of a kitten pot pie... Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. Check out a great source for information on Avernum 2, Nethergate, and Subterra: Zeviz's page. Finally, there's my Geneforge FAQ, Geneforge 2 FAQ, and Geneforge 3 FAQ. Posts: 2831 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, March 21 2005 15:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:Also very interesting. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to ask you to qualify your position a bit more. For example, you say that the creationism movement is misleading because (among other things) it doesn't tell people about guys like Morton (fascinating link, BTW). Do you think it is necessary for any scientist to inform his audience about people who disagree with him? Should someone publishing a paper referring to evolution be obligated to point out that there are scientists who do not accept evolution as fact? Surely not. If you could clear up this point for me, and maybe help me understand your POV on the issue a bit better at the same time, I'd really appreciate it. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 01:56
Profile
Homepage
A lot of scientists do mention disagreements and then try to prove them wrong. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 03:18
Profile
I have a problem with stupid dualistic arguments. Especially science versus religion. Yes; in the absolute sense they are created by people with blinders on who remain unaware of changes in religious and scientific thought. People are stuck in a false cartesian mentality. Somehow people are run by either logic (science) or faith (religion). This is garbage. Science disproves itself here. People start out with neither logic nor faith when they are born. Science and religion are philosoophical constructs created by a fully developed mind. Child development and neurology disprove the cartesian world view. Logic develops late in life. We all start out with emotions and attachment to the world. Later this develops into the endpoints of scientific or religious philosophy-- neither of which are mutually exclusive. Newton and Einstein were believers in the absolute sense. It is even possible to complete ignore logic and religion and focus on other philosophies or senses of meaning-- for me art and literature are more important than either science or religion. This is true for some people who embrace certain moral or political philosophies like Confucianism or lifestyles like communalism. If one is aware of the later developments in science and religion there is a greater and greater focus on philosophical endpoints which destroy dualism than old arguments about Evolution and Creationism. It is no better than arguing about choice and determinism without understanding concepts like Superdeterminism, and the many worlds interpretation of physics. There are more important ideas like intelligent design which postulates that god created the universe according to the laws of physics. Something which makes creationists and scientists incredibly angry because it destroys the neat dualistic view of reality which we are taught in Sunday School and elementary school. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 06:40
Profile
Homepage
I think you're talking about deism, not intelligent design. EDIT: Are there people who are scientists, aren't religious, and also don't accept evolution? I've seen a lot of people who are religious and don't accept evolution, and a few who are scientists, are religious, and don't accept evolution, but I don't think I've ever seen someone who was a scientist, wasn't religious, and doesn't accept evolution. Do they exist? [ Tuesday, March 22, 2005 06:41: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 08:01
Profile
I am Taoist, I have faith in universal balance, and am able to trust what can't be seen. However I seek logic for earthly matters. There is no logic in creationism. There is a great deal of science to support evolution. [ Tuesday, March 22, 2005 08:02: Message edited by: Dolphin ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 08:28
Profile
quote:I doubt it, but there certainly are people who are religious and accept evolution. As I side note, I believe that religious people mainly use their intuition, while irreligious people mainly use their ratio. [ Tuesday, March 22, 2005 08:33: Message edited by: Mind ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 08:43
Profile
Great scientists and religious thinkers use both. Augustine was very logical-- he did not believe in everything in the bible-- the books of the apocalypse particularly, but used logic to prove the existence of god. Similarly Newton was very into mysticism and deeply religious. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
FAQSELF
Member # 3
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 08:51
Profile
quote:Thank you for the calm approach to the question. I know that both sides of E vs C tend to get very worked up in the issue. For a good scientific discussion (like a refereed paper), you will need to address all arguments to the contrary, and present your evidence in light of these arguments. However, one need not address arguments to thing outside of the frame of debate. For instance, I am publishing a paper on early geochemical sources of phosphorus. An early paper argues that there were no early geochemical sources of phosphorus. However, they forgot about meteorites. Now, I don't need to mention that there are Creationists who believe the world is only 6000 years old, or that there are Hindus who believe that the world is 1 billion years old (both of which preclude a period of late heavy bombardment 3.8 billion years ago), as that doesn't add to the debate. In a public science discussion, it is neither practical nor necessary to provide all evidence for a specific point (like the geology of the Grand Canyon). However, since creationism is directly opposed to evolution, and since it usually argues that mainstream science is wrong, then it must shoulder the burden of providing information to the opposite. Likewise, individuals supporting evolutionism in C vs. E debates must do the same. I tend to think that many creationists gloss over religious scientists like Morton with a quick statement like "it's not biblical" and leave it at that. Many evolutionists likewise ignore the benefits of faith and are too quick to discard religion. Kelandon: Very few. I'm sure you can find one somewhere on the internet (I think Ted Holden is one), but most tend to be evangelical Christians. -------------------- A few cats short of a kitten pot pie... Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. Check out a great source for information on Avernum 2, Nethergate, and Subterra: Zeviz's page. Finally, there's my Geneforge FAQ, Geneforge 2 FAQ, and Geneforge 3 FAQ. Posts: 2831 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
FAQSELF
Member # 3
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 08:54
Profile
quote:Thank you for the calm approach to the question. I know that both sides of E vs C tend to get very worked up in the issue. For a good scientific discussion (like a refereed paper), you will need to address all arguments to the contrary, and present your evidence in light of these arguments. However, one need not address arguments to thing outside of the frame of debate. For instance, I am publishing a paper on early geochemical sources of phosphorus. An early paper argues that there were no early geochemical sources of phosphorus. However, they forgot about meteorites. Now, I don't need to mention that there are Creationists who believe the world is only 6000 years old, or that there are Hindus who believe that the world is 1 billion years old (both of which preclude a period of late heavy bombardment 3.8 billion years ago), as that doesn't add to the debate. In a public science discussion, it is neither practical nor necessary to provide all evidence for a specific point (like the geology of the Grand Canyon). However, since creationism is directly opposed to evolution, and since it usually argues that mainstream science is wrong, then it must shoulder the burden of providing information to the opposite. Likewise, individuals supporting evolutionism in C vs. E debates must do the same. I tend to think that many creationists gloss over religious scientists like Morton with a quick statement like "it's not biblical" and leave it at that. Many evolutionists likewise ignore the benefits of faith and are too quick to discard religion. Kelandon: Very few. I'm sure you can find one somewhere on the internet (I think Ted Holden is one), but most tend to be evangelical Christians. EDIT: Lord Baron Von Toast- yeah, many people don't know that Newton spent the later half of his life trying to contact the dead through alchemy. [ Tuesday, March 22, 2005 08:55: Message edited by: Schrodinger ] -------------------- A few cats short of a kitten pot pie... Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. Check out a great source for information on Avernum 2, Nethergate, and Subterra: Zeviz's page. Finally, there's my Geneforge FAQ, Geneforge 2 FAQ, and Geneforge 3 FAQ. Posts: 2831 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 09:10
Profile
Two books which I found interesting: Descartes Error-- Emotion, Reason, and The Human Brain, Antonio R. Damasio The First Idea: How Symbols, Language, and Intelligence Evolved From Our Primate Ancestors to Modern Humans Stanley I. Greenspan and Stuart G. Shanker [ Tuesday, March 22, 2005 09:11: Message edited by: Lord Baron Von Toast ] -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 10:26
Profile
I am a Hindu, but a reasoning, progressive one that doesn't put any stock in the archaic idea of the earth only being a billion years old. I am also a biology major at school and have a solid background in evolutionary theory. Some might see a conflict there, but there really isn't any in my case. I believe in the process of evolution and am satisfied by the scientific evidence that backs it up. As for whether I believe in pure evolution or God-guided evolution, I'm not yet decided on that point. I might not ever be sure. Religion is certainly not divorced from reason or logic. Fundies aside, many religious people, such as myself, disregard scriptural literalism and actually put the scriptures to rigorous logical analysis. I've arrived at my current set of beliefs through much thought, analysis and introspection, and as such consider myself to be an enlightened religious thinker and scientist. -------------------- Stughalf "Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed."- The Bhagavad Gita. Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 11:42
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, there's the intelligent-design-by-extraterrestrials crowd, and I'm sure one or two of them have managed to find themselves scientific positions, but as you might imagine they're a bit of a fringe group. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 12:35
Profile
Homepage
Going back on topic, I last read Elbow Room by Daniel Dennett. I think it helped clarify my views about free will. -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. desperance.net - Don't follow this link Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 14:06
Profile
Homepage
Being religious and being scientific are not mutually exclusive. I would consider myself both religious and scientific, and I believe in evolution, and so do most of the religious people I know. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 3364
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 14:36
Profile
Homepage
Yes, I am one of those who have settled on 'God-guided evolution'. There is science to back it up and nothing is impossible for God so I find it very likely that he used evolution to create the world and the creatures in it. On the issue of whether or not I evolved from a monkey, though, the jury is still out but leaning towards no. -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 14:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:No worries. I try to be as reasonable as I can about this sort of stuff. I think it's much more practical to actually look at exactly where we disagree and why rather than getting into some sort of contest. It's the comments like "There is no logic at all in Creationism" that irk me. It's pretty insulting to be told you can't have thought things through properly, or that you're not basing your opinions on logic, or that you've been brainwashed/are deluding yourself. I always appreciate being able to have a discussion without all that stuff. Kel - I suspect the main reason for that would be that any scientist who comes to the conclusion that life couldn't have evolved is going to start looking into religion. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Tuesday, March 22 2005 14:49
Profile
Ok perhaps my statement was unjust. I am very open to a logical explanation to creationism. Please show me some scientific references so I can do further research on this discussion. Maybe if I see the logic that supports creationism I will have an easier time understanding that a woman just popped out of a guy's rib to populate the species. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4214
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 01:04
Profile
quote:Accommodating to the theory of evolution, our ancestors were amoebae. Thus, every specimen on earth is, indirectly, part of the same family. quote:Only few religious people believe the story of the Creation strictly. Although I am not religious, I do not think that it is entirely impossible that someone, who was not omnipotent, but very cunning, helped coincidence to create us somehow. [ Wednesday, March 23, 2005 09:38: Message edited by: Mind ] Posts: 356 | Registered: Tuesday, April 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4784
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 06:05
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, I suppose it depends on which religion you're looking at. I would say most religious Jews (as opposed to just a Jew by birth) and most Christians believe in the creation story. When you believe in an all-powerful God, the events of the creation story are trivial. -------------------- Forever Always on Past the End tracihedlund@charter.net[/url] TrueSite for Blades - Blades Walkthroughs Pixle Profusion - BoE Graphics Archive Posts: 563 | Registered: Tuesday, July 27 2004 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 08:37
Profile
I would think that the vast majority of religious Jews believing in the creation story would be Orthodox Jews, specifically. After all, Drakey is a religious but non-Orthodox Jew, and believes in evolution. -------------------- Stughalf "Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed."- The Bhagavad Gita. Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 08:58
Profile
Homepage
It also depends on what you mean by "believe": if you give people a survey on science questions and include something about human creation, and then give them a survey on religious questions and include the same question on human creation, I suspect a large number of people will answer the same question differently based on context. It's hard to measure these sorts of things. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Wednesday, March 23 2005 09:00
Profile
quote:I believe in God energy, and in higher beings. I tend more tward enlightenment and reincarnation than the image of God sitting on a cloud stroking his white beard. I agree that higher powers guided our evolution and development. I was commenting on specifics of Creationism. I can except without science that God essence created the series of events that cause the earth to be inhabitable or the appearance of the ameba. That is very far from saying that a fully formed human was just put here one day. Read the bible, it says just that. Countless people believe this whole-heartedly. [ Wednesday, March 23, 2005 09:01: Message edited by: Dolphin ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
