Questioning Darwin

[mukkrakker]

Anyone catch HBO’s new documentary "Questioning Darwin" last night?

 

There's no debate; it just lets creationists talk themselves into a corner.

 

One guy says that if the Bible says two plus two equals five he would believe it.

 

There's a review at Slate:

Creationism is dangerous: HBO documentary Questioning Darwin shows how fundamentalism imprisons the mind.

 

I always wondered how they thought science could be such a global conspiracy, but here they are achieving exactly that, brainwashing on a gigantic scale - I was genuinely scared and saddened for the kids.

[M30USA]

We've spoken before about "assumptions" in science that most people don't even know they are making.

 

Let's just look at the fundamental concept of Darwinism, itself, which is "genetic mutation". How can science possibly discover what causes these said mutations? Whether you are considering micro- or macro-evolution, all you can do is OBSERVE a particular mutation, but showing what CAUSED it is where we get into trouble. In other words, was it completely blind random chance? Was it a mutation that wasn't based on "error", per se, but rather an in-built program? Or was the mutation even caused by an outside governing force or entity? These are all things which cross over from science to assumption.

 

As an example, pretend you are a monkey. Pretend you are studying the micro-evolution of corn crops. In 1995 you see certain traits in corn crops worldwide. Then in 2015 you see DIFFERENT traits. You observe completely new variations of corn crops which did not exist before. So you assume this was genetic mutation caused by random chance and now the fittest variations are reproducing.

 

Wrong. There we have an assumption. The true situation is that an outside entity (in this case human beings) is genetically modifying corn crops and artificially producing these changes for an intended purpose--while you, as the monkey, confidently assume it's random genetic mutation without purpose.

 

This just begins to illustrate where science fails. Science is needed and has it's importance. But it cannot see beyond mere observation and assign meaning to things and it can't correctly identify what's causing the observed changes.

[misternoname]

And religion steps in and answers the unknown with fairy tales? The unexplained in science does not in itself invalidate scientific theory...we're just not there yet. For example, long ago scientists didn't have the technology to explain bacterial disease. They knew something was causing illness but the wise ones were pretty sure it wasn't a demon or some other "religious" cause. Their inability to explain the real culprit was merely a result of where they were on the scale of technology. We, of course, fully understand the concept of micro biology and understand that the disease is the result of a scientifically proven culprit (no demons!). That being said, just because we currently can't explain the cause of long term cellular mutation doesn't mean the only viable explanation is divine intervention or creationism. The real answer is out there...we're just not there yet.

[mukkrakker]

pretend you are a monkey [and] are studying the micro-evolution of corn crops

 

Because monkeys do this all the time…

 

Why not just stick to the second part of your "argument" - humans modify corn genetically because they KNOW HOW TO BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

 

There are NO assumptions here. Apart from your assumption that the monkey is smart enough to do science but too stupid to know it's findings. Poor monkey.

 

This just begins to illustrate where science fails….it cannot see beyond mere observation and assign meaning to things and it can't correctly identify what's causing the observed changes.

 

Yep, we put a man on the moon by assuming things.

 

I'm also assuming some things right now… you don't even need science to guess what they are.

[M30USA]

Why not just stick to the second part of your "argument" - humans modify corn genetically because they KNOW HOW TO BASED ON SCIENTIFIC .

 

This is the third time you have shown an inability to follow the course of an argument. My point had nothing to do with how corn is modified. Rather, I was talking about the PERCEIVED PURPOSE to an observer (or whether the genetic alteration APPEARED to be caused by mutation or by genetic engineering). Your observation that it was caused by genetic engineering merely illustrates my point.

 

Just out of curiousity, how old are you? You sound pretty young.

Edited February 11, 2014 by M30USA

[mukkrakker]

This is the third time you have shown an inability to follow the course of an argument.

 

That's because your argument is baseless, and incorrect.

 

You set up a scenario (pretend monkeys) where you wish to denounce science but have as an essential element of scientific underpinning (genetic engineering).

 

You did the same thing before when you made the grand pronouncement that macro-evolution only ever happened once, then went on to tell us how science can never show events from the past.

 

You rely on science to denounce science. You want it both ways.

 

Just out of curiousity, how old are you? You sound pretty young.

 

Dude, I have no inkling why this of any interest, but I am very old, but young of heart.

 

Look, you have a cavalier attitude to facts; you "pretend" that there is no research, no results, no predictability that shows that genes, alleles and codons can be transposed and translated to show their effect. You ignore genetic paleopathology that shows evolution of traits that contribute to speciation.

 

That is a CHOICE you are making, but it is not a rationalization with any substantive foothold in the real world.

 

I'm fine with that, your life your choice; the issue I have, as with religion and creationism, is that outright lies are told as truth to children (and adults) held hostage in cabals of entrenched dogma, who do not have that freedom of choice.

[Mint Sauce]

I was talking about the PERCEIVED PURPOSE to an observer (or whether the genetic alteration APPEARED to be caused by mutation or by genetic engineering).

 

This perceived purpose is imo the very origin (pun intended) of the debate. Every human being looks at the (perceived) miracle that is life, and assumes it could not exist had it not been designed/created with a purpose. Even I, as a scientist, have that perception. The problem with that perception is that we can't grasp the time scales correctly. The thing is though that if you do the actual numbers, there's been plenty time to evolve a human being from a single-cell organism just by random mutations, and given the environmental constraints, it will inevitably end up looking like a human. So if you accept the scientific observation that random mutations can lead to the current complexity of life, any "design" is no longer intelligent, because it doesn't perform better than randomness.

[MyEvilTwin]

[quote=M30USA;5520371

 

As an example, pretend you are a monkey. Pretend you are studying the micro-evolution of corn crops. In 1995 you see certain traits in corn crops worldwide. Then in 2015 you see DIFFERENT traits. You observe completely new variations of corn crops which did not exist before. So you assume this was genetic mutation caused by random chance and now the fittest variations are reproducing.

 

 

This just begins to illustrate where science fails. Science is needed and has it's importance. But it cannot see beyond mere observation and assign meaning to things and it can't correctly identify what's causing the observed changes.

 

 

People are monkeys. People don't yet understand all the reasons for genetics. However, we do not make a leap to blind faith that some god that we are created in the likeness of (how narcissistic!) is the answer to everything we don't understand. Just like we were wrong as humans to assume the world was flat simply because that's how it looked from our vantage point. Same goes for the universe to have been created in 6 days.

 

 

Science is discovering the answers to many things all the time, as mankind progresses in science.

Science hasn't "failed" simply because it hasn't answered all the questions yet. I imagine we will never have all the answers. The universe is more complex than our current understanding of it, no doubt. That still doesn't mean that the words of a few men writing a book on the subject two thousand years ago is the ultimate truth.

Science works with hypothesis and theories. Science does not assume! That's the beauty of it. It is constantly evolving, unlike religion.

 

"But it (sic-science) cannot see beyond mere observation and assign meaning to things and it can't correctly identify what's causing the observed changes."

That which you wrote above is exactly what religion does. Assume and make up answers. Science understands where it is in the path to understanding, and makes no such assumptions, and is not rigid nor refuse to conform should a previously made hypothesis or theory prove at a later date appear untrue. Only religion is rigid. Science adjusts as new understandings come to light. It is the rigidity and refusal to conform to new ideas and understandings that plagues religion. As something like that the universe was not created in 6 days is understood, religion refuses to abandon the belief from a few thousand years ago that has been proven to be untrue, and stubbornly insists that any words written in the bible are true for all mankind for all time. This will be its downfall, and is.

Science has no such loyalty to any concept that it can not abandon under any circumstances. Science is loyal to the discovery and evolution of science--and embraces its own evolution. Science relishes and thrives in its own evolution, and is excited and invigorated by it. Religion digs its heels into concepts, and stubbornly refuses to evolve no matter how much scientific proof comes along, because it's basis is that the bible was written by a flawless god, instead of accepting that it was written by flawed men. Science flourishes in discovering new truth, not rigidly clinging to old beliefs. Science willingly lets go of old beliefs as new truths are discovered.

The problem with Christianity is that it refuses to evolve or be questioned. It isn't much talked about that the universe wasn't created in 6 days. To open the door to questioning within Christianity --that if one thing in the bible isn't true, what else isn't? Puts the entire bible on shaky ground. This the religion cannot tolerate, because so little of the bible is based on fact, and none of it is allowed to evolve. To admit the bible is wrong about anything opens the door to questioning everything in it, so this must not be allowed under any circumstances, lest some believers now come to believe the entire thing is a hoax, as many, like myself, have.

Edited February 12, 2014 by MyEvilTwin