Darwin and atheism

[Penumbra]

I've always hated the term Darwinism, as if the final word on evolution was spoken centuries ago and there has been no scientific progress made in that area since then. It's like calling all of physics Newtonism and debating the theological implications of Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration while working on a particle accelerator.

I agree. Darwin is only a part of the theory.

Sometimes opponents of the theory try to attack Darwin personally, or try to show that he is wrong somewhere, as though that would have any affect at all on invalidating the theory of evolution. Most of the details of evolution came well after Darwin, with the understanding of genetics. Attacking Darwin personally does about the same to evolution as attacking Newton does to F = MA or any of the other classical laws. Their characters no longer have an affect on the truth or falsehood of their scientific theories, but instead that falls in the hands of the leagues of people testing and advancing those realms of science.

-Lyn

 

[Verv]

So you don't take medicine when you're ill, you step off high buildings, you constantly run into brick walls because it's only a scientific hypothesis that bodies cannot easily pass through other solid bodies, and you don't use the Internet or a cellphone, preferring to communicate by telepathy.

You tooikkk that out too far, my friend!

I feel more like when it comes to philosophy, science has little to no ramifications other than in the more boring fields, e.g. the study of te nature of mass, etc.

The discredited methodology of Logical Positivism has nothing to do with evolution except, perhaps, for the few dozen or so logical positivists still around.

So your assertion is a straw man attack.

Evolution is a fac, proven by rational means and many lines of evidence - sort of like that spherical earth thing.

Prove otherwise, if you can.

I do not know enough about science; if it is a fact, it is irrelevant to the Bible as the Bible seems to imply that things evolved.

The scary thing is that so many have fallen into the belief that we can only understand humanity from this overly scientific perspective that does not take into account that much with simply being rational beings making our own deductions.

 

[cantata]

The scary thing is that so many have fallen into the belief that we can only understand humanity from this overly scientific perspective that does not take into account that much with simply being rational beings making our own deductions.

Human beings are profoundly irrational.

Largely as a result of our evolutionary history, I might add.

 

[Verv]

Human beings are profoundly irrational.

Largely as a result of our evolutionary history, I might add.

Would you like to go on with this?

I think there are some irrational aspects to things and a lot of willful hypocrisy. Buddhism and Christianity are the two most amazingly willfully hypocritical institutions in the world.

However... I think they are willfully hypocritical because they are rational.

 

[cantata]

Would you like to go on with this?

I think there are some irrational aspects to things and a lot of willful hypocrisy. Buddhism and Christianity are the two most amazingly willfully hypocritical institutions in the world.

However... I think they are willfully hypocritical because they are rational.

Example of human irrationality: people are dreadful at calculating and responding to risk. How many people are afraid of flying but think nothing of getting in a car to get to an airport? How many people diligently checked all their food for Sudan Red G when the story that it is carcinogenic broke, who smoke or use sunbeds regularly?

To use Derren Brown’s example: suppose there’s an illness that 1 in 10,000 people have. You undergo a blood test that has a 99% accuracy rate, and it comes up positive. Most people would think that means they have a 99% chance of having the illness, and would therefore get pretty worried.

But imagine you actually have those 10,000 people in a room. Only one of them has the illness, but 100 of them will test positive using this test (1% of 10,000 is 100)! So actually, if you test positive, you still only have a 1% chance of having the illness.

Gary Marcus’ excellent book Kluge is full of examples of how human beings are irrational in all sorts of circumstances and offers evolutionary explanations for our errors. It’s very interesting.

 

[Verv]

Example of human irrationality: people are dreadful at calculating and responding to risk. How many people are afraid of flying but think nothing of getting in a car to get to an airport? How many people diligently checked all their food for Sudan Red G when the story that it is carcinogenic broke, who smoke or use sunbeds regularly?

To use Derren Brown’s example: suppose there’s an illness that 1 in 10,000 people have. You undergo a blood test that has a 99% accuracy rate, and it comes up positive. Most people would think that means they have a 99% chance of having the illness, and would therefore get pretty worried.

But imagine you actually have those 10,000 people in a room. Only one of them has the illness, but 100 of them will test positive using this test (1% of 10,000 is 100)! So actually, if you test positive, you still only have a 1% chance of having the illness.

Gary Marcus’ excellent book Kluge is full of examples of how human beings are irrational in all sorts of circumstances and offers evolutionary explanations for our errors. It’s very interesting.

That all sounds very interesting.

However, these are just isolated things; and furthermore, humans often trust in their own idea of being able to drive and have a very unnatural feeling concerning flying 20,000 feet above the ground.

I find that yeah, though sometimes we are irrational about things, we are overall not terribly dumb or anything.

 

[cantata]

That all sounds very interesting.

However, these are just isolated things; and furthermore, humans often trust in their own idea of being able to drive and have a very unnatural feeling concerning flying 20,000 feet above the ground.

I find that yeah, though sometimes we are irrational about things, we are overall not terribly dumb or anything.

No, we’re not dumb. But we are largely irrational. Most people can understand these common errors when they are explained, and we can even train ourselves to avoid them. The point is that you can’t assume that everyone goes about making the most rational decisions all the time. We are often swayed by deep-rooted instincts that get in the way of our powers of reasoning.

 

[Verv]

No, we’re not dumb. But we are largely irrational. Most people can understand these common errors when they are explained, and we can even train ourselves to avoid them. The point is that you can’t assume that everyone goes about making the most rational decisions all the time. We are often swayed by deep-rooted instincts that get in the way of our powers of reasoning.

What is the reason that we would behave irrationally, though?

 

[cantata]

What is the reason that we would behave irrationally, though?

Parts of our brain are, in evolutionary terms, much older than others. Our brain stem, which controls our most basic bodily functions, is truly ancient: you can find similar structures all over the evolutionary tree. A step above that you have the amygdala, which is also pretty old, and is responsible for your “gut reaction” type emotions, like anger and fear.

The “clever” parts of your brain—the reasoning and problem-solving parts—are much newer, so they’ve not been evolving nearly as long, and they are not so fast or certain as the more ancient parts. Although they’re more sophisticated, your instincts all come from your more primitive brain, and instincts are very powerful things.

Furthermore, even your shiny new brain didn’t evolve in the modern world, a world of savings banks and microwaves and global economics and hamburgers. Here’s an example from Gary Marcus’ book:

“… would you drive across town to save $25 on a $100 microwave? Most people would say yes, but hardly anybody would drive across town to save the same $25 on a $1,000 television. From the perspective of an economist, this sort of thinking … is irrational. … Either the value of your time and gas is less than $25, in which case you should make the drive, or your time and gas are worth more than $25, in which case you shouldn’t make the drive. End of story.

“… In the clear-eyed arithmetic of the economist, a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, but most ordinary people can’t help thinking about money in a somewhat less rational way: not in absolute terms, but in relative terms.”

And here’s his explanation:

“To start with, humans didn’t evolve to think about numbers…. Clearly, both counting systems and money are cultural inventions. On the other hand, all vertebrate animals are built with what some psychologists call an “approximate system” for numbers, such that they can distinguish more from less. And that system in turn has the peculiar property of being “nonlinear”: the difference between 1 and 2 subjectively seems greater than the difference between 101 and 102. …

“In some domains, [this] makes a certain amount of sense: a storehouse of an extra 2kilos of wheat relative to a baseline of 100 kilos isn’t going to matter if everything after the first kilos ultimately spoils; what really matters is the difference between starving and not starving. Of course, money doesn’t rot (except in times of hyperinflation), but our brain didn’t evolve to cope with money; it evolved to cope with food.”

So there you go: one example of why we behave irrationally as a consequence of our evolutionary history.

 

[brightmorningstar]

I agree that 'attacks' on Darwin are of little value, Darwin had the theory of evolution from what he observed. Sadly it remains a theory as neither he nor anyone else has observed evolution... and scientific testing indicates the evolution of species is not the case.
What I will say is that so often atheists ask believers to prove the existence of God but get upset when asked why one can't demonstrate evolution of the species, one cant breed two different species in the lab.

 

[cantata]

I agree that 'attacks' on Darwin are of little value, Darwin had the theory of evolution from what he observed. Sadly it remains a theory as neither he nor anyone else has observed evolution...

Neither you nor anyone else has observed the metal core of the earth, but we know it’s there because geologists can do difficult sums and figure out that the average density of the earth requires there to be a very dense bit in the middle. It is a fallacy to suppose that you have to literally see something happening in order to know that it occurs.

Don’t forget: no one can observe history, but we know it happened. Evolution is just part of very old history.

Besides, we have seen evolution in action. See the infamous peppered moths. See the development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

and scientific testing indicates the evolution of species is not the case.

You are mistaken.

What I will say is that so often atheists ask believers to prove the existence of God but get upset when asked why one can't demonstrate evolution of the species, one cant breed two different species in the lab.

So? One can’t make continental drift happen in the lab but we still know it happens.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

Neither you nor anyone else has observed the metal core of the earth, but we know it’s there because geologists can do difficult sums and figure out that the average density of the earth requires there to be a very dense bit in the middle. It is a fallacy to suppose that you have to literally see something happening in order to know that it occurs.

I agree, that’s what I tell atheists.

Don’t forget: no one can observe history, but we know it happened. Evolution is just part of very old history.

If one believe evolution of the species, which is somewhat different to the examples you gave as we can breed within species but not new species show science actually tells us by testing that the theory of evolution of species is not true.

Besides, we have seen evolution in action. See the infamous peppered moths.

The example of the pepper moths is one that casts such doubt over the evolution of species as not only has it nothing to do with any other species apart from moths it is badly contrived and taught as an example of evolution. The chameleon can change its colours immediately.

You are mistaken.

If you think I am mistaken then say why. What scientific testing indicates the evolution of species, what new species can be breed?

So? One can’t make continental drift happen in the lab but we still know it happens.

Continents cant fit in the lab, but breeding can.

 

[cantata]

The example of the pepper moths is one that casts such doubt over the evolution of species as not only has it nothing to do with any other species apart from moths it is badly contrived and taught as an example of evolution. The chameleon can change its colours immediately.

Note to self: do not discuss science with brightmorningstar.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Note to self: pointless discussing science with people who dont understand that science is based on theory observation and testing.

 

[cantata]

Note to self: pointless discussing science with people who dont understand that science is based on theory observation and testing.

I quite agree.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Cantata,

I quite agree.

I dont think so. Would you like to continue discuss the science instead of one line contradictons?

 

[cantata]

I dont think so. Would you like to continue discuss the science instead of one line contradictons?

Not with you, thank you.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Cantata,
What are you doing on a debating forum then?

 

[cantata]

What are you doing on a debating forum then?

Talking to lots of people who aren’t you.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Talking to lots of people who aren’t you.

exactly so as I said what are you doing on a debating forum then if you only want to debate with certain people?

By not responding to a perfect good argument it looks like you have met your match.

The example of the pepper moths is one that casts such doubt over the evolution of species as not only has it nothing to do with any other species apart from moths it is badly contrived and taught as an example of evolution. The chameleon can change its colours immediately.

So the pepper moths existed in both dark and light varients but mostly light, then most were dark then most light again. Sounds like adaptation within the species to me rather than evolution. Furthermore the reason given that they changed colour to the bark is highly suspicious when it seems they are mostly found under leaves.