Doctors doubting darwinism

[RoyLennigan]

Great another word twister... Obviously not all scientists think like this and not all scientists are evolutionists.. If you are confused on what the word "certain" means look it up in the dictionary please...

I would like to lay aside bias as best we can. It is safe to say that anyone working with changing systems, scientist or not, will observe the action of evolution. What they call it might differ, but the action itself remains the same. This action is the interaction of all variables such that some pieces are eliminated and some are strengthened due to their relationship with their environment. It is not just about life.

You don't know me so don't judge me..

I am not judging you. The only path to the truth is understanding. If you don't even try to understand the other position, then you will never learn.

Accountability is something that ALL people struggle with... I know some scientists who don't even know what God is and they are living a more Godly life than some Christians I know... Maybe even more than myself..

I agree. But no one can say they they know what God is. Anyone who says otherwise is denying themselves or others of truth. Those who are only motivated to understand god go insane because it is impossible, as a human being, to understand the ultimate retainer of information.

It is better to simply have faith. But there is a fine line where one must modify their faith, based on their own intricate network of probabilities--the mind. If we do not have faith, then we are forever questioning and we get nowhere. If we do not question, then we are forever stuck in an unchanging ideal. As the universe changes, our unchanging ideal will become more detrimental to our existence.

also, scientists seem to adhere to a different set of morals, though morals nonetheless. its more of an analytic morality--they try to observe their surroundings and predict what is about to happen, then they form hypotheses on what their possible actions might cause, then choose from those possibilities based on what will achieve their intent most accurately. they get used to having to decide on their own instead of sticking to a set of black and white rules.

Scientists seem to adhere to a different set of morals? That's funny, I never saw separate laws for scientists in our court system.. Again not all scientists are evolutionists.. Some are theists too..

Don't fool yourself. The court system is a sham, though a dangerous and powerful sham. Everyone has their own morals based on what they've experienced, what they've been around. Its simply what one is impulsively motivated to do, or think due to some action around them. I don't draw a black and white line between theists and atheists nor between evolutionists and creationists. I see what they say and do as a reflection of what they have seen and experienced--a single fractal of the whole picture, the whole universe.

People think they are always right because they only think of certain things. And perhaps they are right, in that they know their intents and perhaps those intents coincide with their actions. But we look at others and say they are wrong because we don't see what they are seeing. We only see what we are seeing, and what their words make us think, not what they were thinking to cause those words.

Black and white rules huh? So tell me, what are the rules against murder? Is it wrong or grey?

Murder is a word connotating illegal killing. Killing is a more truthful word, as it doesn't depend on so many variables. Killing is sometimes necessary based on one's intents and knowledge of how to realize those intents. For instance, if you were cornered by someone intent on killing you and you had the ability to kill them instead, you might kill them to continue living. But murder is based on a societal ideal that is sometimes swayed by individual actions.

It is said that "thou shalt not kill" and yet killing is done. And today, the blood is on everyone's hands, not just those who do the actual killing. It is on our hands because we are reluctant to stop it. When it is said that thou shalt not kill, does that mean that you should not kill even if it means you yourself will die consequently? Does it mean that thou shalt not kill except to rid society of certain people. And by what standard do we choose those people?

and, of course, the instinctual set of morals that every person is born with, even though they are all slightly different. but we are all born with a sense of what we should and shouldn't do--its called instinct.

I heard that Adolf Hitler had a lot of instinct too...

Having a "lot of instinct" only means that you are more impulsive and more likely to cause wide scale change. And wide scale change means that conflict increases. Where there is conflict there is violence.

But are you saying that our instinctual motivations are sinful? I would say that you are both right and wrong, if that is what you meant.

Our instinctual desires are different from person to person. But usually it boils down to being either a person of more altruistic nature or a person of more selfish nature. Religion teaches us to be more altruistic, against the nature of our ancestors who had to constantly fight for their own individual survival. Religion is here because we need something to lean upon to help us change from our selfish nature and become more communal. If we do not, then we will surely destroy ourselves.

You relax.. Why does ID scare you so?

Don't misinterpret me. I am not scared of ID, in fact the idea intrigues me. What I am scared of are the numerous amounts of people who take these (and other) words so literally that they blind themselves from the actual world around them. I meet so many theists, not just christians, who take their book of faith so literally that they get caught up in the details, forgetting the overall morals of the literature. And that's what its all about. Its not about when or how the earth was created, or how life developed. Its about living harmoniously and striving to understand--to love through understanding. But we try to seperate everything so much so that we only end up seperating ourselves from reality.

But to be fair, this is only human nature, to want to be ultimately right in the face of opposing logic. Scientists will naturally claim that their conclusions are more right than another's. But again, we have to strive away from this kind of thinking. It is hard, though because we have to trust everyone, while at the same time knowing that others might be naive to this vision and will selfishly act only for themselves.

but there are also the many groups who see (correctly) that ID and creationism researchers are almost completely comprised of christians. this means that many will take ID as a christian theory and so it won't be accepted as science (scientists like diversity).

Scientists like diversity huh? The case for ID is for intelligent design. Let people decide for themselves who they think that designer was.. America is a secular nation.. We live in a democracy not a jail cell..

But it does not mean that there absolutely had to be a designer. Or that the designer had to be an intelligent being as defined by our limited human knowledge of what exactly intelligence is. The designer could very well be an entity that no human would (at this time) label, or even recognize, as an "intelligent being".

But to me, the universe operates similarly to how our own brain operates. And that there is no difference between an intelligent being and a complex system of relations--such as the universe.

Also, it is wise to note that the majority is not always right, and is often more easily swayed than the individual. This is because the democratic majority must stick to vague or confined ideals in order to appease the masses. This contradicts the seemingly infinite detail of our constantly changing universe.

again, you take the effects of a human trait and blame it on science.

No on "certain" scientists... Not science itself...

I agree, certain scientists are swayed by money. But your 3 reasons for why only certain scientists believe in evolution is quite lacking. There are a plethora of scientists that I have met who meet none of the three stereotypes. And I am under the impression from these true scientists (who don't do it for the money, nor the accountability, nor any laws) that their kind are the ones who do the real work--the work that most others use for their own selfish ends. In fact, they openly work in spite of the reasons you have stated. They complain that more and more scientists are succumbing to 'bandwagons' of belief--that legitimate research is being overlooked in order to work on proving preconcieved ideas all because of investments and investors not wanting to lose money. But all that isn't real science. The real scientists are being overshadowed so all that people like you see are the selfish ones.

Something similar is happening in christianity and islam. All that the atheists see are the selfish money-dependant evangelists. They don't see the true christianity, or the true islam.

yes, this is true for some, but not for most. if you knew any real scientists, you'd be surprised.

Oh so you agree with me..

Take that agreement with a grain of salt and a purge of your pride.

the ones who get paid big money are the ones working on specialized project funded by companies who need their research to develop products or services.

if you met any true scientists you'd retract your previous statement. they don't care about money because they've been doing what they're doing since before they were paid to do it. they do it because its their lifestyle--they enjoy figuring things out merely by observation and measured interaction.

No but some are fearful that their public projects will get cut if they start supporting the case for ID.. And if their projects get cut, no money. And no money means no jobs..

Yes, its a cruel world out there, but it is not their fault that they feel that way. It is the fault of our social order and the way that we feel we must bureaucratize the system in order to get anything done. This is wrong and we are just figuring it out. The system doesn't work because it oppresses individuals who could be making breakthroughs. But there are still those who fight the system to get their view out, and eventually it works. Like Gallileo, Aristotle, or Plato. Or Martin Luther.

What I believe about the case for ID will actually strengthen their jobs and projects. Not cut jobs. I believe it will FUND them more money.. Creationism or teachings from the Bible should not be taught in a public setting.. (Although I would like it that way perhaps..)

What is it you suggest? How will research into ID strengthen a [seemingly] opposing theory?

I think that science should seriously delve into areas that it usually shuns away from. From UFO abductions to the existence of god. It would be very useful to give the majority of humanity some answers to things that they wonder and keep wondering about. It is better to appease them than to show them something else to think about, as science does now.

I am not saying that in hopes of debunking and showing them they are wrong. I believe that some of what is labelled as 'pseudoscience' will actually prove to contain some truth. And I am not saying that science should in any way become less legitimate in its methods. I am simply saying that scientists should take other possibilities more seriously--simply because so many people believe they are true. The consequences of not taking them seriously are that society will not take the scientists seriously in response. This is detrimental to humanity and the earth--because science does discover mostly legitimate laws and facts, but the illegitimacy of it comes from those who don't understand those facts, but use them anyways, including many scientists.

when you're doing real science, you don't get paid very much because no one these days can make money off the migratory patterns of seagulls or the such. and even if you do make a lot of money as a scientist, most of the time its in a position such as engineering or physics, where the work you do is constantly compared to how it works in reality.

For the most part I agree with you.. But I don't think bringing ID onto the turf won't cut scientists funds..

do you want to know the biggest reason why scientists support evolution?

because they're used to it. if its been that way for a while, then humans will always take it for granted. they don't care enough to look any deeper or question why its accepted as it is because its work thats 'already been done'. and who wants to do work thats already been done? seems like a waste of time, right? wrong, as you know.

Is that why only 1 in 4 Americans accept Darwinian evolution as the whole truth? No most of it started with the Scopes trial in 1925.

Heh... I am quite pleased that only 1 in 4 Americans are naive enough to believe Darwinian evolution. It is outdated and explains only enough insofar as to get the evolution ball rolling. Notice the specific usage of "darwinian" evolution. The theory has progressed far beyond its original state by now. And where do you get the numbers for that statistic?

so, in conclusion, try to keep in mind that most people believe in something only because they've been exposed to it so much over time, that it becomes fact to them.

So what are you implying? It's been around for so many years that it has solid ground and completely factual?

No... They believe in it because they've been so constantly exposed to it for such a long time that it therefore becomes fact to them. I did not mean that it becomes fact in reality. As someone becomes increasingly used to something, they increasingly take it for granted--as a given. This is why people clung to creationism for so long, and why people are clinging to evolution now--unsubstantiated, that is. I do not speak of those who have legitimate reason to believe in the aforementioned.

Keep in mind that the Scopes trial in 1925 was the movement that forbade the teaching of creationism in any state-funded educational system.. And it is amazing to consider that the Scopes trial lasted only 12 days.. Hardly enough time to get all the facts.. And it was lost because William Jennings Bryan dropped the ball and couldn't defend the Christian faith not the other way around..

Are we reading the same article? It says that Tennessee law forbade the teaching of evolution. And that the trial was because a teacher was accused of teaching evolution. Also, that the teacher lost the trial.

Anyways. Trials like this are almost completely a show. The undercurrents that bring to climax such a conflict take so much longer to come to a point. All that we see, though, is the trial, and so we are decieved. The trial itself means almost nothing--it is like a summarization of sides and events in order to appease the public with some assemblance of a 'compromise' or a final answer. But there are no final answers, and the same questions will be asked again.

Also ask any real scientist.. Darwinian evolution is a theory not a fact...

Do you purposely put 'Darwinian' in front of it to make sure that you are right? Of course darwinian evolution is theory. But evolution itself must be true. It is witnessed in literally every form of change everywhere you look, not just life forms.

[RoyLennigan]

...

[godslanguage]

Do you purposely put 'Darwinian' in front of it to make sure that you are right? Of course darwinian evolution is theory. But evolution itself must be true. It is witnessed in literally every form of change everywhere you look, not just life forms.

Explain please. Evolution must be true, you have not explained to what extent? So evolution explains everything is that what your trying to say? Where has evolution been witnessed beyond life forms (and I have never actually seen evolution been simulated (to a even small degree) apart from the use of intelligently designed computers which have put upon themselves and programmers the lazy, imaginative and hardcore soft-science claims of ND'sm). If ND'st can stop using they're imagination and start using predictive set of rules or logic to formulate a testable, predictive and objective model of what they are actually claiming, you can at that point start to question other theories of intelligent design, the Intelligent Design claims corresponds and relies on the physical and physically testable evidence.

[RoyLennigan]

Do you purposely put 'Darwinian' in front of it to make sure that you are right? Of course darwinian evolution is theory. But evolution itself must be true. It is witnessed in literally every form of change everywhere you look, not just life forms.

Explain please. Evolution must be true, you have not explained to what extent? So evolution explains everything is that what your trying to say? Where has evolution been witnessed beyond life forms (and I have never actually seen evolution been simulated (to a even small degree) apart from the use of intelligently designed computers which have put upon themselves and programmers the lazy, imaginative and hardcore soft-science claims of ND'sm). If ND'st can stop using they're imagination and start using predictive set of rules or logic to formulate a testable, predictive and objective model of what they are actually claiming, you can at that point start to question other theories of intelligent design, the Intelligent Design claims corresponds and relies on the physical and physically testable evidence.

Look at the term "evolution" as generally defined:

1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. 8 ).
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

All these definitions tie into the same basic concept--a concept that defines the general relationship at the root of all change.

To get over the problem of whether or not life evolves as scientists say it does, we must first discover that life is not as distinguishable from non-life as we once thought. In other words, all processes, whether or not they occur in a system humanly defined as 'life', are based on the same fundamental relationships.

This might also help us with the problem of being unable to define God in such a way that god can be evidenced. A creator, by definition, must be intelligent. We call ourselves intelligent, but our definition of intelligence is circular: We are intelligent; intelligence is showing characteristics similar to ourselves. But since we are limited beings, we cannot possibly percieve all that God has created, let alone all that God is. Therefore, it is most likely that the 'intelligence' of God has extraordinarily different characteristics than our own. If we look to ourselves as a system, then perhaps we can begin to discover other kinds of intelligent systems.

It may sound blasphemous to some, but only until you realize that God cannot speak to us in mere words, only in direct experience.

Science must change too, and it is being dragged down by an outdated social order. The same goes for religion. Our ideals are being hindered by the selfishness that our modern society has indulged.