Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

Though not all junk DNA is just DNA with an unknown product. Some of it is DNA with the known product of junk. That said, it could be Batman.

I just read this:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... hard-work/

It seems relevant.

LOL Yes, I'm a musician, and I wonder sometimes if "academic" musicians aren't more prone to a more intense sense of idealism than other arts and academic disciplines. Artistic integrity is somewhat akin to other manifestations of "intellectual integrity," the prominent idea is that the artist or composer does not surrender to commercial pressures that dictate the end result. The online course I took was "Sound Design for the Electronic Musician" from the Berklee College. My opinion of Berklee has been that it is primarily a commercially or industry-concerned school, so I haven't always had a high opinion of it. But on the other hand, I've come to realize that I'm not an island, nor is it solely for myself that I compose. If I have something "legit" to offer, it needs to be "out there" in the public arena, not within the confines of my bedroom/studio--something I've always known, just not been able to work out in a practical way. I enjoy the occasional songwriting venture when I have a willing partner (hard to come by), but that's more in the realm of "hobby." So is playing in a rock band. I used to be mildly offended that (and still am, though I've loosened up about it) that the music in my church has shifted more in favor of "contemporary praise and worship" rather than the more traditional stuff I'm used to, and more "concert-oriented" choir anthems seem to be on the way out as they are a rarity. The odd thing that makes me indispensable there is my ability (and willingness) to interpret lead sheets and to improvise. I don't question it--it's about 2/3 of my income!

Anyway... Sounds to me that you're not really in quite such a bad place for an exchange of ideas. The thing I hated about my undergrad years the most--and it might just have been where I went to school--was that I felt more often that my profs dictated to me what I ought to think and believe. The English profs were the worst. Undergrad music courses typically don't inspire originality or creativity, but that isn't their purpose. There aren't really that many different ways to write a Mozartian rondo (conservative, "classical" tonality) or a 12-tone piece in the style of Schoenberg (strict avoidance of tonality, emphasis on dissonances--to this day I find "patterns" and major triads in that kind of music physically painful). Most likely you have a similar experience in the various fields that you've studies--biology as well as your other majors. The better teachers will always lead you to come up with answers on your own.

What is MOST important is what you do with your graduate studies. Most people find they have much greater creative freedom, and their graduate work allows them to contribute significantly to their field. My thesis was an amalgam of my musical interests at the time, and the weeks leading up to the defense were the most stressful--one question, though, was expected: What (at that time) did I see as the future of the clarinet in music? This was from my clarinet teacher, obviously. It's a scary question, because my future (passing my defense) hinged on that question (among others, but this one was especially important considering who asked it). Do I give the answer everyone WANTS to hear? The problem for me, if I'm being honest, is that I don't see the future as hinging strictly on the academic, but the problem is that was the purpose of my defense. What to do, what to do... So I gave them my answer, which was the most UNacademic answer and the only such unintellectual view I expressed in my defense. But I firmly believed at the time (and still do) that I was right, and I think given postmodern artistic trends what I said is inevitable.

So here's something, since you profess to be a Christian and I have no reason not to believe you: What is the future of evolution? Is it possible that evolution can become victim to one of it's central tenets natural selection? Is it possible that evolution itself can become extinct? We have observed in nature the reemergence of species we previously thought extinct (happens all the time where I live). Is it possible that evolution may fade into the mists of history, only to reappear and disappear at some point in the future?

This is the weirdest misconception of evolution I have ever encountered.

Actually, string theory is at least falsifiable in principle. The controversy surrounding string theory is that it's horrendously difficult to test, which is not surprising considering the scales involved. In fact, not only string theory, but all theories of quantum gravity will have the same problem. However, despite what the critics say, I can cite some sources which suggest that some parts of string theory, though not the theory, can be tested indirectly at the low energies we can achieve. Not everyone in the scientific community believes string theory is untestable.

Regardless, the difference here is that evolution well established by the evidence and facts available, string theory is not. Also, unlike string theory, creationism is not falsifiable even in principle since nobody can provide any hypothetical scenario which would reasonably falsify it. Hence, grounds for considering creationism a scientific theory is actually far worse than string theory.

Hey, you're taking that WAY too seriously, Sand. It's only a question. It's one of those things you can't really answer in a "right" or "wrong" sense because only time can tell if it is "right" or "wrong." I mean, wouldn't it be interesting if evolution itself became prey to natural selection in a philosophical sense? Personally, I think it COULD happen.

Besides, Sand, I know you to be a more creative type. And your a bit of an "old dog" around here. I figured someone like you might have more to say about it.

So how about it? Anyone? Could evolution itself as an idea become a victim of natural selection, even become extinct, and maybe even reemerge?

Just curious. It may seem silly, but it could also be entertaining to at least consider the possibility.

Evolution is the result of an interaction of the mechanisms of organic structures and the environment. Biology is continuously making variations of organic structures and testing them out against the environment.The environment is continuously changing so the process is in continual dynamic interaction. How do you see this as stopping? (unless there is a total destruction of life which is not out of the question)

If humanity became extinct tomorrow that would end all thought about evolution. But evolution would continue as long as living things can live on or in the earth. Evolution happens because reproduction is information lossy. Offspring are not exactly like their parents or parent.

ruveyn

Considering the wealth of life other than human I doubt if evolution is dependent upon humanity

Only the thought or theory of how evolution works requires intelligence. The fact of evolution derives from the underlying molecular chemistry of living matter and its physical interaction with the external environment. The sun does not need astronomers and physicists to shine.

ruveyn

Depending on the level you were at, that may have been appropriate. There is no room for diverging opinions in a freshman chemistry course, or any mathematics course, or in introductory biology courses. All of those classes cover things that are so well established that we can safely say "If you disagree, you are wrong." If you were in music, you probably never took any "academic" subjects (science, humanities, social sciences, etc) at a high enough level where you were likely informed enough to have a meaningful disagreement with your professors' opinions. Again, you should read that article AG posted ("Would you like fries with that theory?") for an explanation of why this is so.


Evolution occurs whether humans believe in it or not. It went on for billions of years before we existed. If you are talking about the study of evolution in an academic context, that is also here to stay. Although most creationists don't seem to realize it, evolution has overwhelmingly won at this point, to the point where educated people do not consider there to be any contest remaining.

Have we ever seen a single new specie being created out of nowhere?

That's not my question. I asked whether evidence or argument could change your mind, not whether you have been given evidence or argument that has changed your mind.


You also asked AG this:

Think about his reply:

You have again resorted to a "stuff happens" answer. Every time you add an ad hoc assumption to your theory you destroy more of its predictive power. The more possibilities fit your theoriy, the less reliably it can predict what should happen. You appear to think adding ad hoc assumptions makes your theory stronger. It makes it weaker. This is one of the most fundamental principles in science. If you are proud to advocate a "stuff happens" theory, you are in trouble.


I asked you before to explain what sense of "meaning" you intend. If it is "purpose" then you appear to be saying you believe in a creator because you want to believe, not because you have reason to believe there is a creator.


That means nothing a mere human says, no evidence or argument, could change your mind? That is what I want to know.

Out of nowhere? We have not observed abiogenesis, if that is what you're asking. We have observed the evolution of new species on many occasions, though. Plants can branch into a new species in a single generation. Drosophila species have diverged in the laboratory several times. We've seen speciation in rodent population several times.

I suppose if you include Catholic doctrine under "creationism", that's not falsifiable. That's only because the Catholic church holds that evolution is entirely true, though; they just say it reflects their god's will, thus illustrating that one can be 100% Christian while still considering evolution 100% true.

Young earth creationism - which I believe is the topic of this thread - is quite falsifiable and has been repeatedly falsified. You don't even need biology for that; all you need is evidence that some part of the universe has been around for more than 6000 years, and there's plenty of evidence for that.

That the facts are well established does not mean that rote memorization is the right way to teach.

It is certainly true that today's undergraduates seem to prefer for all the information to be handed to them on a platter, and seem willing to simply accept it all as true on the authority of the professors; it may even be true that today's professors prefer to teach that way. That way of learning, however, is quite limited; people need much too much information during their lifetimes to learn it all in four years. That way of teaching can result in graduates who think they know everything, when in fact what they know is a small fraction of what they need to know.

40 years ago, colleges more often challenged students to figure out what was correct for themselves. While they may have ended up memorizing fewer facts that way, they graduated with a much better ability to learn new facts and figure out new information throughout the rest of their lives.